July 25, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5225 

Carter 

Cassidy 

Chabot 

Chaffetz 

Chandler 

Cicilline 

Clarke (MI) 

Clarke (NY) 

Clay 

Coble 

Coffman (CO) 

Cohen 

Cole 

Conaway 

Connolly (VA) 

Costa 

Costello 

Courtney 

Cravaack 

Crawford 

Crenshaw 

Critz 

Cuellar 

Culberson 

Davis (KY) 

DeFazio 

Denham 

Dent 

DesJarlais 

Diaz-Balart 

Doggett 

Dold 

Donnelly (IN) 

Doyle 

Dreier 

Duffy 

Duncan (SC) 

Duncan (TN) 

Ellmers 

Emerson 

Farenthold 

Farr 

Filner 

Fincher 

Fitzpatrick 

Flake 

Fleischmann 

Fleming 

Flores 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Foxx 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Gallegly 

Gardner 

Garrett 

Gerlach 

Gibbs 

Gibson 

Gingrey (GA) 

Gohmert 

Goodlatte 

Gosar 

Gowdy 

Granger 

Graves (GA) 

Graves (MO) 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Griffin (AR) 

Griffith (VA) 

Grijalva 

Grimm 

Guinta 

Guthrie 

Hahn 

Hall 

Hanna 

Harper 

Harris 

Hartzler 

Hastings (WA) 

Hayworth 

Heck 

Heinrich 

Hensarling 

Herger 

Herrera Beutler 

Higgins 

Hinojosa 

Hochul 

Holden 

Honda 

Huelskamp 

Huizenga (MI) 

Hultgren 

Hunter 

Hurt 

Issa 

Jenkins 

Johnson (IL) 

Johnson (OH) 

Johnson, Sam 

Jones 

Jordan 

Kelly 

Kildee 

King (IA) 

King (NY) 

Kingston 

Kinzinger (IL) 

Kissell 

Kline 

Kucinich 

Labrador 

Lamborn 

Lance 

Landry 

Langevin 

Lankford 

Latham 

LaTourette 

Latta 

Lewis (CA) 

Lipinski 

LoBiondo 

Loebsack 

Lofgren, Zoe 

Long 

Lucas 

Luetkemeyer 

Luja ́n 

Lummis 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Lynch 

Mack 

Manzullo 

Marchant 

Marino 

Matheson 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCaul 

McClintock 

McGovern 

McHenry 

McIntyre 

McKeon 

McKinley 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

McNerney 

Meehan 

Mica 

Michaud 

Miller (FL) 

Miller (MI) 

Miller, Gary 

Moran 

Mulvaney 

Murphy (CT) 

Murphy (PA) 

Myrick 

Nadler 

Neugebauer 

Noem 

Nugent 

Nunes 

Nunnelee 

Olson 

Owens 

Palazzo 

Pascrell 

Pastor (AZ) 

Paul 

Paulsen 

Pearce 

Pence 

Perlmutter 

Peterson 

Petri 

Pingree (ME) 

Pitts 

Platts 

Poe (TX) 

Polis 

Pompeo 

Posey 

Price (GA) 

Quayle 

Quigley 

Rahall 

Reed 

Rehberg 

Reichert 

Renacci 

Ribble 

Richardson 

Rigell 

Rivera 

Roby 

Roe (TN) 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Rohrabacher 

Rokita 

Rooney 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Ross (AR) 

Ross (FL) 

Royce 

Runyan 

Ruppersberger 

Ryan (WI) 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Scalise 

Schiff 

Schilling 

Schmidt 

Schock 

Schrader 

Schweikert 

Scott (SC) 

Scott (VA) 

Scott, Austin 

Scott, David 

Sensenbrenner 

Sessions 

Sherman 

Shimkus 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Smith (WA) 

Southerland 

Speier 

Stearns 

Stutzman 

Sullivan 

Sutton 

Terry 

Thompson (CA) 

Thompson (PA) 

Thornberry 

Tiberi 

Tierney 

Tipton 

Tonko 

Tsongas 

Turner (OH) 

Upton 

Visclosky 

Walberg 

Walden 

Walsh (IL) 

Walz (MN) 

Waters 

Webster 

Welch 

West 

Westmoreland 

Whitfield 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman 

Wolf 

Womack 

Woodall 

Yarmuth 

Yoder 

Young (AK) 

Young (FL) 

Young (IN) 

NAYS—98 

Ackerman 

Andrews 

Bass (CA) 

Becerra 

Blumenauer 

Bonamici 

Brady (PA) 

Brown (FL) 

Butterfield 

Capps 

Capuano 

Cardoza 

Carney 

Carson (IN) 

Castor (FL) 

Chu 

Cleaver 

Clyburn 

Conyers 

Cooper 

Crowley 

Cummings 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

DeGette 

DeLauro 

Deutch 

Dicks 

Dingell 

Edwards 

Ellison 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Fattah 

Frank (MA) 

Fudge 

Gonzalez 

Gutierrez 

Hanabusa 

Hastings (FL) 

Himes 

Hinchey 

Holt 

Hoyer 

Israel 

Johnson (GA) 

Johnson, E. B. 

Kaptur 

Keating 

Kind 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

Lee (CA) 

Levin 

Lewis (GA) 

Lowey 

Maloney 

Markey 

Matsui 

McCollum 

McDermott 

Meeks 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, George 

Moore 

Napolitano 

Neal 

Olver 

Pallone 

Pelosi 

Peters 

Price (NC) 

Rangel 

Reyes 

Rothman (NJ) 

Roybal-Allard 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

Sa ́nchez, Linda 

T. 

Sarbanes 

Schakowsky 

Schwartz 

Serrano 

Sewell 

Shuler 

Sires 

Slaughter 

Stark 

Thompson (MS) 

Towns 

Turner (NY) 

Van Hollen 

Vela ́ zquez 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Watt 

Waxman 

Wilson (FL) 

Woolsey 

NOT VOTING—6 

Garamendi 

Hirono 

Jackson (IL) 

Jackson Lee 

(TX) 

Richmond 

Stivers 

b 1458 

Ms. CLARKE of New York changed 

her vote from ‘‘nay’’ to ‘‘yea.’’ 

So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the 

bill, as amended, was passed. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

The title was amended so as to read: 

‘‘A bill to require a full audit of the 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve 

banks by the Comptroller General of 

the United States, and for other purposes.’’. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

Stated against: 

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, during the vote 

for H.R. 459, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, I voted ‘‘yes’’ for this legislation. 

This was not my intent. I intended to vote 

‘‘no.’’ I strongly believe that the Federal Reserve should remain an independent central 

bank that is free from political influence; therefore, I would like the record to reflect that my 

vote in favor of this legislation was in error, 

and that I would have voted against it. 

f 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE 

CLERK OF THE HOUSE 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 

WOODALL) laid before the House the following communication from the Clerk 

of the House of Representatives: 

OFFICE OF THE CLERK, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

Washington, DC, July 25, 2012. 

Hon. JOHN A. BOEHNER, 

The Speaker, House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to the permission granted in Clause 2(h) of Rule II of 

the Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Clerk received the following message from the Secretary of the Senate on 

July 25, 2012 at 11:33 a.m.: 

That the Senate passed S. 2090. 

Appointments: 

State and Local Law Enforcement Congressional Badge of Bravery Board. 

Federal Law Enforcement Congressional 

Badge of Bravery Board. 

Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Review Board. 

With best wishes, I am 

Sincerely, 

f 

KAREN L. HAAS. 

RED TAPE REDUCTION AND 

SMALL BUSINESS JOB CREATION 

ACT 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 

legislative days within which to revise 

and extend their remarks and include 

extraneous materials on H.R. 4078. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from California? 

There was no objection. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 738 and rule 

XVIII, the Chair declares the House in 

the Committee of the Whole House on 

the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4078. 

The Chair appoints the gentlewoman 

from Michigan (Mrs. MILLER) to preside over the Committee of the Whole. 

b 1500 

IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Accordingly, the House resolved 

itself into the Committee of the Whole 

House on the state of the Union for the 

consideration of the bill (H.R. 4078) to 

provide that no agency may take any 

significant regulatory action until the 

unemployment rate is equal to or less 

than 6.0 percent, with Mrs. MILLER of 

Michigan in the chair. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the 

bill is considered read the first time. 

General debate shall be confined to 

the bill and shall not exceed 2 hours 

equally divided and controlled by the 

chair and ranking minority member of 

the Committee on the Judiciary and 

the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform. 

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 

SMITH), the gentleman from Michigan 

(Mr. CONYERS), the gentleman from 

California (Mr. ISSA), and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. CONNOLLY) 

each will control 30 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from California. 

Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes. 

Job creation is, rightfully, at the top 

of Americans’ agenda. Americans know 

that as long as the unemployment rate 

stays high, wages are stagnant and 

more than 12.7 million Americans seek 

jobs they cannot find. More than 42 

percent, or nearly 6 million, of those 

Americans have been unemployed for 

more than 6 months. 

Madam Chair, the verdict is in: the 

President’s stimulus plan has failed. 

While costing over $1 trillion and still 

counting, those jobs that were created 

were short, and they too are disappearing. Ultimately, small business 

will create the engine going forward. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5226 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 25, 2012 

Today’s bill, in fact, is designed specifically to give confidence to America’s business creators, ones that we 

have heard from on the committee for 

more than 18 months, the opportunity 

to take a breath, evaluate what is the 

lay of the land, and go forward with 

the business plan, no longer worrying 

that out of the blue will come major 

regulatory changes, ones that were unforeseen just a little while ago, that ultimately change their plans, change 

their ability to make a profit. 

Whether it’s the President’s ACA or 

ObamaCare or smaller $100 million, $200 

million, $1 billion new regulations, this 

uncertainty has put dollars on the sidelines. Today, through more than seven 

different elements of the titles of the 

bill, our effort will be to ensure that we 

do not propose without serious consideration new regulations. 

The President himself, while producing more than 106 major rules costing more than $46 billion, has said, We 

may be overregulated. His own chief 

spokesperson, Mr. Sunstein, has said 

that, in fact, regulations can cost jobs. 

So, Madam Chairwoman, it is extremely important that we understand 

that we must have regulatory certainty, something we will only have by 

the passage of today’s bill. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam 

Chairman, I yield myself such time as 

I may consume. 

Whether serving as a staff member on 

the Senate Foreign Relations Committee years ago or as chairman of the 

Board of Supervisors in Fairfax County 

or now, as a Member of Congress, a 

constant principle of my own public 

service career has been a deep suspicion of political legislation that employs arbitrary across-the-board mechanisms that make for good talking 

points but terrible policy. Such messaging bills make a mockery of the legislative process, and, unfortunately, 

H.R. 4078 is just such a bill. 

To understand the absurdity of this 

bill, consider the proposal to ban any 

new regulations based on the Nation’s 

unemployment rate. Actually with the 

typo in the bill, it’s the ‘‘employment’’ 

rate. But for starters, there is little or 

no evidence correlating regulation to 

private sector hiring. However, there is 

considerable evidence showing that 

blocking important health and safety 

regulations will have a negative effect 

on all seniors, children, veterans, consumers—not to mention the private 

sector itself. 

As written, the legislation prohibits 

any new regulatory actions until the 

‘‘employment’’ rate falls to 6 percent, 

meaning unemployment would have to 

reach 94 percent before agencies could 

issue new regulations. The effect of 

that language, coming from a crowd 

that was just a few years ago talking 

about ‘‘read the bill,’’ means we would 

never update Medicare payment rates 

for doctors, bank lending protections 

for families, or food safety protections 

for consumers. No doubt, our Republican colleagues intended for this moratorium to apply until ‘‘unemployment’’ falls to 6 percent, which would 

still block regulation for the foreseeable future. 

What is absurd about their premise is 

that the Department of Labor, for example, would be able to update the exposure safety standards to adequately 

protect the health of workers exposed 

to beryllium, a toxic substance linked 

to lung cancer and other chronic and 

fatal diseases, based on a 0.1 percent 

swing in the unemployment rate. 

The same would be true for implementation of the Veterans’ Benefits 

Act, bipartisan legislation that passed 

in the last Congress with no opposition. Under this bill, when the unemployment rate is 6 percent, the Department of Veterans Affairs would be able 

to take ‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ meaning implementation of the 

enhanced disability compensation benefits provisions for veterans experiencing difficulty using prostheses, for 

example, after the loss of limbs, or veterans in need of extensive care because 

of post-traumatic stress syndrome. 

However, if the unemployment rate is 

0.1 percent higher, just 6.1 percent instead of 6 percent, H.R. 4078—the bill 

we’re debating right now—would prohibit the Veterans Administration 

from improving care for those veterans. 

Think about that: in voting for this 

bill, Members are endorsing a world 

view that a 0.1 percent swing in unemployment ought to determine whether 

the Federal Government can issue 

rules that benefit veterans with catastrophic injuries, updating Medicare 

payments for doctors, assisting students with loan debt, or providing families peace of mind that the peanut butter in their pantry will not poison their 

children. Any law that results in such 

absurd outcomes is deeply flawed and 

misguided far beyond the typo. In fact, 

the bill, as written, would even prevent 

those rules that would save money 

from being implemented. 

Whether one advocates for smart regulation or passionately hates all regulations, surely we can all agree that 

the bizarre, capricious, and unjust outcomes that H.R. 4078—this bill—would 

lead to are the hallmarks of careless 

policy based on ideology, not on good 

public policy, not on good governance. 

Indeed, as former Republican Congressman Sherwood Boehlert of New York 

stated in a recent op-ed piece in The 

New York Times, I believe, on H.R. 

4078, he said, it is ‘‘difficult to exaggerate the sweep and destructiveness of 

the House bill.’’ That was from a Republican former colleague in this body. 

I would remind my Republican colleagues that one of the first executive 

orders issued by President Obama requires agencies to ensure that their 

regulations are, indeed, cost-effective. 

Of course that doesn’t fit their narrative. Neither does it fit the fact that 

the Obama administration has actually 

issued fewer final rule regulations than 

the Bush administration did in its first 

term. 

I urge my colleagues to join me in restoring sanity to the policymaking 

process in this House by opposing this 

extreme measure. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, I trust the 

gentleman from Virginia is well aware 

that the typographical error in the bill 

under consideration was, in fact, a mistake done by professional staff. And although unanimous consents are not 

permitted in the Committee of the 

Whole, I would ask the gentleman from 

Virginia if he would be willing—or let 

me rephrase that—if he would not object to a unanimous consent in the 

House to make a correction in what 

was clearly a typographical error made 

by nonpartisan professional staff at the 

Leg Counsel’s office. 

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Is the 

gentleman yielding to me for an answer? 

Mr. ISSA. Yes, I am. 

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam 

Chairman, this Member will reserve 

the right to object at the appropriate 

time. 

Mr. ISSA. Reclaiming my time, nothing could be more insincere than to 

pick on professional staff on a typographical error. 

If we have to go to the Rules Committee, I guess we will. But I am really 

sorry to see that kind of an attitude on 

what the gentleman and all of us know 

was simply a typographical error. 

b 1510 

With that, I yield 5 minutes to the 

gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 

RIBBLE). 

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam 

Chairman, matter of personal privilege. 

Did this Member hear the chairman, 

the distinguished chairman of the 

Oversight and Government Reform 

Committee, characterize a Member as 

insincere? 

The CHAIR. The Chair cannot interpret as a matter of personal privilege 

remarks that were made in debate. 

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I’m not 

asking for interpretation, Madam 

Chairman. I’m asking whether he in 

fact said it. 

The CHAIR. That is a matter for debate between Members. 

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I would 

ask the Chair to caution all Members 

about personal characterizations of 

Members on the floor of the House. 

The CHAIR. The gentleman from 

California is recognized. 

Mr. ISSA. I thank the Chair. I meant 

nothing other than I was shocked that 

the gentleman would say that he would 

reserve time on what was clearly a typographical error. 

With that, I yield 5 minutes to the 

gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 

RIBBLE). 

Mr. RIBBLE. Madam Chair, I rise 

today in support of this legislation 

which includes the Midnight Rule Relief Act that I authored earlier this 

year. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
July 25, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5227 

I would like to take just a moment as 

a former small business owner to talk 

a little bit about the impact of regulations because we will hear from our 

colleagues on the other side that there 

is no evidence that regulations affect 

hiring, it doesn’t affect start-ups, that 

if we do these things that the whole environment is going to go down the hill, 

the whole country is going to end here 

because of the fact that the Federal 

Government can’t control every minutia of our lives. 

Now I would say this, Madam Chair, 

that I believe rather than a big government, I believe in a big, free individual. 

I think a little bit, as I tell my story 

today about my father who started our 

roofing company in 1958, there were 

fewer rules of the road then. There 

were rules of the road, for sure. There 

were certainly rules put in place. Since 

that time, there have been thousands 

and thousands and thousands. There 

has been a lot of discussion in this 

Chamber about the gap between the 

rich and the poor and how the middle 

class is getting squeezed. I just wonder 

if we ever think that the middle class 

is getting squeezed, but they’re getting 

squeezed by their government. They’re 

not getting squeezed by rich people; 

they’re not getting squeezed out of it 

by opportunity. They’re getting 

squeezed out of it by a government 

that no longer lets them pursue the 

American Dream. Sometimes I feel 

that the other side wants them to pursue their dream, that our government 

wants to dictate what the dream ought 

to be for American citizens. 

My father had his own dream. He was 

a milkman in the 1950s after he came 

home from World War II as a U.S. marine. He had six sons and later adopted 

two girls. I’m the youngest of eight. 

There were many, many times in my 

life, when my father, as he tried to not 

just make a better dream for himself, 

not just to live out his hopes and 

dreams and aspirations, but to build a 

better future for me and my family, for 

my children and for my grandchildren 

as he started our family business. I 

wonder if today he could even do it. He 

had no money. He was delivering milk 

at the time, one of the lowest paid jobs 

out there at the time in 1956. 

He put an ad in the paper and tried to 

find work, and he decided that he 

would go into the roofing business. And 

through pure grit and determination 

and hard work, he started his own company. He was able to do that because 

all of the barriers that had been put in 

place by this overreaching government 

weren’t there. He had a customer of 

ours—his, actually, because I was just 

a child—tell him he ought to name the 

company Security Roofing because 

they felt secure in his hands. That customer was well aware of the fact that 

my father was providing a service for 

them that they were willing to transact money for. And it was a fair transaction of goods. And if my father had 

cheated them, his reputation would 

have went down, and he wouldn’t have 

been able to sustain himself. He built 

his company on fairness. He built his 

company on honesty and integrity, and 

the government wasn’t in the way. 

And now today, imagine some unemployed worker thinking about starting 

his own landscaping business, his own 

roofing company, a young college graduate, a young woman who wants to be 

a beautician and start her own beauty 

shop. We have this complex maze of 

rules and regulations and licensures 

and all these things that we think have 

made life better, but have taken freedom and have crossed the American 

Dream. 

That’s what this bill is about. It’s 

about for a moment in time, it’s about 

incentivizing this government to remove the barriers and obstacles, to get 

them out of the way and say to the 

American people, there will be no more 

for a period of time until unemployment reaches this level, 6 percent. 

We’re not taking away rules. We’re just 

saying you can rely that there won’t be 

new ones for a time. 

Also, this bill will stop the President 

of the United States, both Republicans 

and Democrats, from doing a lame 

duck session, whether they have been 

fired or extended in their careers, to 

not promulgate a bunch of rules and 

regulations during a lame duck session. 

We’ve seen a massive increase of rules 

and regulations during that period of 

time—17 percent in the 3 months following an election where parties 

change hands. 

The number of major rules issued 

during Bill Clinton’s midnight period 

totaled 31⁄2 times more than the average number issued during the same calendar period in the other years in 

President Clinton’s second term. President Bush wasn’t much better. His was 

21⁄2 times more. 

So to solve this problem, this bill 

would simply say to the President of 

the United States, for 90 days you can’t 

do it. I support this bill, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam 

Chairman, I wish my friend’s characterization of the bill were accurate; 

but, sadly, I think what this bill does is 

cripple the ability of the government 

to protect the American public across a 

broad swath of policy areas that certainly matter to the average American. 

I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes 

to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. 

MALONEY). 

Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership. 

Madam Chair, this is a terrible bill. 

This shortsighted legislation affects 

every corner of our government and 

keeps Federal agencies from issuing 

rules critical to our economy and 

health and safety of Americans. It sets 

a ridiculous arbitrary benchmark of a 6 

percent unemployment rate before an 

agency can issue rules. 

For example, I think it goes in the 

opposite direction of making the Securities and Exchange Commission more 

efficient and more effective for the 

American people. The bill could place 

extremely high procedural barriers in 

the agency’s way as it seeks to enact 

all of the rules as directed in financial 

reform with a limited budget. 

With this bill, my colleagues across 

the aisle seem to somehow believe that 

the final years of the prior administration were just a rousing success, that 

the near collapse of our financial system never happened, that the outrageous abuses that we saw in the 

mortgage lending industry never occurred, and that the abuses in consumer lending that the Federal Reserve 

labeled as unfair and deceptive were 

just business as usual. But we know 

that those things actually happened 

and that they crippled our economy. 

It was in response to events of 2008 

that we gave agencies like the SEC 

tools that they had been lacking to 

monitor the financial system and to 

protect our overall economy. And now, 

right in the middle of implementation 

of these critical reforms, my friends on 

the other side of the aisle want to forget that all of this happened and want 

to put barriers in front of implementing the reforms. 

I believe that the language in this 

bill would basically cripple the SEC. 

Even as SEC budgets are being slashed, 

their bill requires the Commission to 

expend more in the way of resources on 

economic analysis and places additional procedural barriers in the Agency’s way. 

I urge a ‘‘no’’ vote on this bill. I urge 

everyone to vote ‘‘no.’’ It is a death 

knell of commonsense reform. It would 

stop reform. 

b 1520 

Mr. ISSA. It is amazing that we are 

hearing that the world will come to an 

end if we slow down new regulations. 

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the 

gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. 

FOXX). 

Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I want 

to thank the gentleman from California for yielding time. 

I rise today in support of the regulatory reform package before us today 

and in particular title IV of H.R. 4078, 

the Red Tape Reduction and Small 

Business Job Creation Act, which embodies my bill, H.R. 373, the Unfunded 

Mandates Information and Transparency Act. 

My bill represents the first comprehensive reform modernizing the bipartisan Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act since its inception in 1995. This bill 

is supported by State government advocates, including the National Council 

of State Legislatures, which, in a letter 

to Subcommittee Chairman Lankford, 

stated that: 

UMRA has enduring shortcomings that 

your amendment corrects. In particular, expanding the scope of reporting requirements 

to include new conditions of grant aid is essential. NCSL’s members repeatedly point to 

this exclusion in the underlying statute as 

one of the law’s major flaws. 

This bill responds to those concerns 

by allowing a committee chairman or 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5228 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 25, 2012 

ranking member to request that the 

Congressional Budget Office perform 

an assessment comparing the authorized level of funding in a bill or resolution to the prospective costs of carrying out any changes to a condition of 

Federal assistance being imposed on 

any respective participating State, 

local or tribal government. 

The purpose of this provision is to 

highlight costs the Federal Government is passing along to State and 

local governments that would otherwise remain hidden but are borne by 

taxpayers regardless of which governmental entity is taxing them. This provision represents just one of the many 

reasons I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. 

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam 

Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri, my friend, Mr. 

CLAY. 

Mr. CLAY. Madam Chair, I thank the 

gentleman for yielding. 

The majority’s plan to stop national 

safeguards will harm real Americans. 

Regulations affect real people, not just 

balance sheets. When we look at the 

cost of regulations, we have to examine 

more than cold dollar amounts. We 

also have to look at the benefits. We 

have to look at the real lives saved and 

at the real catastrophic injuries prevented. We have to look at the real 

American families who live healthier, 

happier, and safer lives because of Federal regulations, regulations that protect them in their homes, regulations 

that protect them at their jobs, and 

regulations that protect them in their 

communities, places of worship, the 

roads they drive on, the stores where 

they shop, the schools where their children learn, and the parks where they 

play. 

The majority’s plan will have real 

negative consequences on the economy 

and on the health and safety of all 

Americans, especially those among us 

who need the most help. The majority’s 

plan would prevent HUD from updating 

their housing subsidy rates, and more 

families would be without a place to 

live. Worker safety will be jeopardized 

because the majority’s plan would 

block workplace regulations. Children 

will be put at greater risk because the 

majority’s plan would prevent the Federal Government from protecting 

them. 

Madam Chair, we need to work together to create jobs and protect American families, and we don’t have to 

choose between the two. 

Mr. ISSA. I trust the gentleman from 

Missouri is aware that last year, out of 

over 3,000 regulations coming out of 

the administration, no more than 66 

would have even qualified for this moratorium. 

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the 

gentleman from Texas (Mr. CONAWAY). 

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Chairman, I 

rise today in strong support for H.R. 

4078, the Regulatory Freeze for Jobs 

Act. 

I applaud the work of my colleagues 

to combat the growing stranglehold 

that needless government regulation is 

having on job creation and on economic growth. Today’s bill will put an 

end to the ‘‘regulate first’’ attitude 

that pervades the Obama administration. 

Contrary to popular belief, this legislation does not prohibit regulators 

from moving forward with new regulations, but it does require a Presidential 

or congressional waiver to do so. This 

simple, prudent check on the power of 

bureaucrats will ensure that regulations must be justified before they are 

enacted and that less burdensome alternatives are considered first. 

Beyond just slowing the pace of regulations, H.R. 4078 also contains language that will substantially reform 

the way two of our independent agencies develop rules for financial institutions. I am pleased that the Red Tape 

Reduction and Regulatory Reform Act 

would finally require the Commodity 

Futures Trading Commission to perform a comprehensive cost-benefit 

analysis for each rule that they propose. 

One of the most important steps in 

any regulatory process must be an effort to accurately quantify the costs 

and the benefits of a proposed action. 

This is the foundation of good rulemaking. Despite this, the CFTC has 

consistently stated that their obligation under the law is to only ‘‘consider’’ the cost and benefits of proposals. I believe that we can do better, 

and they must do better. Today’s legislation is simple and straightforward. It 

would extend the same requirements 

for cost-benefit analysis to the CFTC 

that the President has already asked 

every other executive branch agency to 

fall under. 

During the Dodd-Frank rulemaking 

process, the CFTC has rarely tried to 

estimate the cost of compliance. At 

times, ‘‘consideration’’ included vague 

statements like ‘‘the costs could be significant.’’ At other times, costs were 

dramatically underestimated. In one 

particular instance, industry groups 

calculated that the cost of compliance 

with a proposed rule was 63 times 

greater than the CFTC’s guess. 

Accurately assessing compliance 

costs is one-half of the equation. The 

other half, of equal importance, is capturing the benefits of a new rule. Regulators must quantify what good the 

rule does. It is not simply good enough 

to regulate because the authority exists. There must also be tangible benefits for market participants that outweigh the costs of the imposed rules. 

Requiring cost-benefit analysis is a 

bipartisan step toward better governance. Exact language now contained in 

H.R. 4078 passed out of the Agriculture 

Committee unanimously in January. 

Last year, President Obama was right 

to demand that the executive agencies 

be held to a higher standard of analysis. Today, there’s no reason why we 

should not require the same from the 

CFTC. 

H.R. 4078 will strengthen the rulemaking process at CFTC and it will result in better rules and a safer marketplace. This small mandate on the 

economists and lawyers at the CFTC 

will ensure that the burdens placed on 

large businesses and small are justified 

in the real world, not just in the pages 

of the Federal Register. 

It’s also important to note that the 

bill is prospective—it will not hinder or 

delay the current proposed rules already making their way through the 

process. As well, title VII of H.R. 4078 is 

consistent and complementary to previously House-passed cost-benefit analysis. 

I urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 4078. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, may 

I inquire how much time remains on 

each side? 

The CHAIR. The gentleman from 

Maryland has 22 minutes remaining. 

The gentleman from California has 17 

minutes remaining. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, I 

yield myself such time as I may consume. 

I rise in strong opposition to this 

dangerous and extreme piece of legislation. This bill would prevent federal 

agencies from issuing regulations that 

protect the health and safety of all 

Americans. Do not be fooled. This bill 

will not create jobs, and this bill will 

not make the government better. This 

bill is intended to stop the Federal 

Government from issuing regulations 

until the unemployment rate reaches 6 

percent or less. 

The standard is indeed arbitrary, and 

it absolutely makes no sense. But the 

bill itself is so poorly drafted that, in 

fact, the moratorium would be in effect 

until unemployment actually reaches 

94 percent. The bill accidentally refers 

to the ‘‘employment’’ rate instead of 

the ‘‘unemployment’’ rate. 

Even if this bill were drafted properly, it would be extremely misguided. 

For example, the Food and Drug Administration would be prevented from 

issuing a rule ensuring that infant formula is safe for babies to drink. Why 

should the safety of baby formula depend on the national unemployment 

rate? Of course, it should not. But the 

FDA would be banned from issuing a 

rule it now is considering to protect 

babies like 10-day-old Avery Cornett, 

who died last year after he drank infant formula contaminated with a dangerous bacteria. 

I offered an amendment to this bill 

that would have allowed agencies to 

protect the health and safety of children, but the House Republicans refused to allow it. 

b 1530 

Under this bill, the Department of 

Health and Human Services would be 

blocked from issuing routine updates 

to payment rates for doctors who treat 

seniors under the Medicare program. 

This would result in hospitals having 

to lay off workers—not creating jobs. 

I offered an amendment that would 

have allowed the Department to protect the health and safety of seniors. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
July 25, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5229 

The House Republicans refused to 

allow that one, too. 

Under this bill, the Department of 

Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs would be blocked from 

issuing regulations to protect the 

health and safety of our troops serving 

overseas and our Nation’s veterans. 

For example, the VA could be blocked 

from issuing a rule it is now considering to help veterans suffering from 

traumatic brain injuries. And we have 

seen so much pain with regard to our 

veterans. 

When we considered this bill during 

the Oversight Committee’s markup, 

Congressman YARMUTH offered an 

amendment to allow the VA to protect 

the health and safety of veterans. This 

amendment was adopted on a bipartisan vote. Even our chairman, Mr. 

ISSA, supported it in committee, yet 

mysteriously it was stripped from the 

bill before it came to the floor. Representative YARMUTH tried to offer that 

same amendment at the Rules Committee, but the House Republicans refused to allow it. 

The House Republicans have refused 

to allow debate on amendments to protect children, to protect seniors, and to 

protect our Nation’s servicemembers 

and veterans. They even removed the 

language that was adopted on a bipartisan basis. 

This bill is based on a false premise. 

The proponents argue that regulations 

kill jobs. This myth has been widely 

discredited by economists on both sides 

of the aisle. 

Congress should be taking a balanced 

approach to reviewing regulations, just 

as President Obama has done. The 

President has focused on helping small 

businesses by identifying regulations 

that are inefficient and unnecessarily 

burdensome. The bill takes the opposite approach by freezing all significant regulations regardless of how critical they are to the health and safety 

of our people. 

Former Congressman Sherwood 

Boehlert, a Republican, wrote an op-ed 

last week, titled, ‘‘GOP Right Wing Is 

Serious About Disabling Government.’’ 

Congressman Boehlert cut right to the 

heart of the bill. Keep in mind, this is 

one of our Republican colleagues, 

former colleagues. Here’s what he 

wrote: 

If one wants to fully appreciate the stranglehold the right wing has on the Republican 

congressional agenda and its intended dangers, one need look no further than the bill 

the House plans to consider next week—talking about this bill—which would shut down 

the entire regulatory system. 

I wish that that description was hyperbole, but sadly it is not. Indeed, it 

would be difficult to exaggerate the 

sweeping destructiveness of this House 

bill. 

I agree with Congressman Boehlert; 

this is an extremely irresponsible bill. 

I urge all our Members to vote against 

it, and I reserve the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. ISSA. There you go again. We’re 

shutting down the entire regulatory 

system because 66 out of 3,000 regulations would be affected by this bill before us today. In just last year, 66 out 

of 3,000, that’s shutting it down. 

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the 

distinguished gentleman from Texas 

(Mr. HALL). 

Mr. HALL. Madam Speaker, I, of 

course, rise in support of H.R. 4078, the 

Regulatory Freeze for Job Acts of 2012, 

which seeks to eliminate needless red 

tape and puts Americans back to work. 

I also thank and am proud of DARRELL

ISSA and LAMAR SMITH for the handling 

of this bill. 

The Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology has explored regulatory hurdles being put up by a number of agencies, and we’ve seen a massive expansion of red tape under this 

administration. Much of it has come 

from the Environmental Protection 

Agency, where too many of the environmental regulations put forward 

have been based on secret science, hidden data, and predetermined outcomes—and some just outright phony. 

EPA appears to be hostile toward 

economic growth and job creation. For 

example, EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule added Texas in at the last 

minute and threatened hundreds of 

jobs in my district and electric reliability across my State. 

One amendment to be offered to H.R. 

4078, while well-intentioned, may have 

the unintended effect of driving agencies to make policy decisions without 

considering scientific information. 

While science almost never provides 

one specific answer to a policy decision, sound science should be used to 

inform the ultimate decision-maker. 

Science can tell you how the world is, 

not how the world should be. 

Eliminating other considerations, 

whether they be moral or ethical, 

leaves some scientists and unelected 

bureaucrats in charge. 

At a time, Madam Speaker, when 

many American families are struggling, H.R. 4078 eliminates red tape, reduces costs, and improves the environment for small businesses and job creators by getting Washington out of the 

way. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I 

yield 31⁄2 minutes to the gentleman 

from Massachusetts (Mr. MARKEY). 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman. I thank him for his great work 

on this bill. 

Despite the best efforts of Republicans in Congress, our Nation has actually made significant progress over 

the last several years protecting the 

health and the well-being of Americans. 

Democrats have passed legislation 

ensuring that Wall Street plays by the 

rules. They can’t continue to turn it 

into a casino where the rich clean up 

on the way up and the poor get cleaned 

out on the way down. 

Democrats modernized food safety 

laws so that Americans can feel secure 

in the knowledge that the food we put 

on the dinner table won’t make our 

families sick. 

Democrats passed legislation to protect the privacy of Americans’ sensitive health information. 

But all of these laws are still in the 

process of being implemented. That’s 

what’s bothering the Republicans here 

today and all of their supporters across 

the country. They cannot go fully into 

effect to work for the American people 

until those regulations are finalized. 

Republicans are determined to keep 

these vital health, safety, and consumer protections from reaching the 

finish line to offer protection for ordinary families. 

GOP used to stand for ‘‘Grand Old 

Party.’’ Now GOP stands for ‘‘Gut Our 

Protections.’’ 

I released a report today, called, 

‘‘Protection Rejection: GOP Abandons 

Consumer, Health, and Safety Measures’’—across the board. It describes 

the safeguards that would be jeopardized under this misguided legislation. 

If you’re a wounded veteran needing 

home care, it will be harder for your 

family to take time off work to care 

for you. Family members were going— 

finally—to be able to take up to 26 

weeks of job-protected leave to care for 

a wounded veteran back from Iraq and 

Afghanistan, but the implementation 

of this new law will be stopped cold by 

this coldhearted Republican bill. 

The bill prevents new fuel economy 

standards, increasing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, forcing families to pay more at the pump, rather 

than a law that backs out 4.3 million 

barrels of oil a day from OPEC, telling 

them that we don’t need their oil any 

more than we need their sand. They’re 

saying stop those regulations from 

going into effect. 

And as we approach the 2-year anniversary of the worst environmental disaster in the history of our country, the 

BP oil spill, this misguided Republican 

bill would stop new safety standards 

for the blowout preventers on drilling 

rigs that could prevent future spills. 

This makes no sense. The safety of the 

American people should be put above 

the special interests that want to stop 

all of these regulations. 

The Republicans say this is about 

cutting red tape, but it’s really nothing 

more than a red herring, a desperate 

attempt to distract from the GOP’s abject failure to spur job creation in this 

country. There are so many red herrings out here we might as well put an 

aquarium here to deal with all of them 

that the Republican Party is throwing 

out here on this bill. 

We must not allow this Republican 

regulatory freeze bill to set consumer 

protections back to the ice age. There’s 

simply too much progress at stake. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute. 

Mr. MARKEY. Hundreds of regulations are going to be taken off the 

books right now. And over the life of 

this bill, thousands of regulations that 

would have protected the health, the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5230 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 25, 2012 

safety, the consumer interests across 

our country will be wiped off the 

books. 

b 1540 

This is a wholesale destruction of the 

protections that ordinary people need 

against wealthy corporations taking 

advantage of them in their homes, in 

their neighborhoods. And so, ladies and 

gentlemen, there has not been a more 

important bill that comes out this year 

of this Congress onto the House floor. 

All of you have access to this report 

I’m putting out here today, ‘‘Protection Rejection: GOP Abandons Consumer Health and Safety Measures.’’ 

It’s on my Web site. If you want to understand the full damage that’s going 

to be done across all of these areas, 

from Dodd-Frank to health care, to 

food safety, to privacy protections for 

families across our country, vote ‘‘no’’ 

on this bill. 

Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, it is now my 

honor to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma, 

(Mr. LANKFORD). 

Mr. LANKFORD. Madam Chair, apparently the other side assumes most 

Americans are corrupt; they’re corrupt 

people who cannot be trusted, and they 

must be babysat at each moment. Company leaders, company owners, many 

company employees, city and State 

leaders have to be supervised at every 

single moment, because if we don’t 

have a Federal bureaucrat standing 

over the top of them, goodness knows 

what they’ll do. 

Well, I happen to trust the American 

people. The people that I live around 

and that I work around and that I meet 

as Americans are great people who 

drink that water, who eat that food, 

who interact with their neighbors in an 

honorable way. And when someone violates and does something criminal, 

they should be treated in a criminal 

way. 

Most Americans are greathearted 

people that just want to do what’s 

right, and they’re just trying to figure 

out every day what the Federal Government is doing to them, rather than 

what the Federal Government is doing 

for them. 

This bill begins to deal with limiting 

the regulations so each and every day 

Americans don’t have to wake up and 

worry about what the Federal Government did to them last night while they 

were sleeping. 

Let me give you an example of that. 

In Oklahoma, we’re asking the question, What authority does a special interest group have over our State government? 

In January of 2009, several environmental groups sued the EPA to force 

them to review the regional haze 

standards. The EPA had wide latitude 

in its response, but it chose to settle 

with the environmental groups in a private agreement, just the environmental groups and some individuals 

from the EPA. That private agreement 

created a way for the Federal Government to take from the States the right 

to enforce regional haze requirements. 

The original law clearly gave the authority to the States, not the EPA and 

the Federal Government to realize regional haze. 

Let me give you an example. This is 

in my own State in Oklahoma. Regional haze is not a health issue. It is 

not a health issue. The way the law is 

written, it’s only a visibility issue. It 

has nothing to do with health issues. 

So our own State has a State implementation plan. 

On one side of this is the picture of 

our State implementation plan, what it 

would look like with our restrictions. 

The other side is the Federal implementation plan, well over $1 billion additional in costs. 

No one could step up here with confidence and tell me which one’s which. 

The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, I yield the 

gentleman an additional 30 seconds. 

Mr. LANKFORD. This is what happens when the EPA makes a private 

agreement, overshoots a State agreement, and says we’re going to go in and 

step in and take over: over $1 billion of 

additional costs to the ratepayers in 

Oklahoma, with no difference in the 

two, other than who controls it. 

This is an issue where there is no 

public-comment period, no stakeholder 

involvement, nothing. It is time to resolve how we do our regulations and to 

make sure stakeholders that are affected are also at the table helping 

make the decisions on how things will 

be affected for the good of our country 

as a whole. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, I 

yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 

Massachusetts (Mr. FRANK), the ranking member of the Financial Services 

Committee. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. 

Madam Chair, this is an example of the 

Republican majority’s taste for legislative exotica. 

We have a very strange bill that no 

one expects to go anywhere. They do 

expect to make some people happy by 

pretending that they’re going to be 

making oil here. This is in lieu of real 

legislation. 

This is the group that could not have 

this House pass a transportation bill. 

The House passed the transportation 

bill by a legislative maneuver of the 

kind they used to denounce. It was 

made part of an overall omnibus package. There was never any chance to 

amend it, and it came out of a conference committee. 

This is a group that can’t pass an agriculture bill. We face problems in the 

agricultural area; and because they are 

so split over what to do, that committee’s brought out a bill, and it’s not 

coming forward. They are unable to do 

the regular legislative business, so we 

get this. 

Now, what this says is that no rules 

that have been promulgated of any significance are going to be going forward. 

I will not debate the gentleman from 

Oklahoma about haze. I am no expert 

about it. But that’s the problem. This 

is not a bill that deals with rules in one 

area and one area of expertise. It does 

everything. So let me talk about one 

area I am familiar with. 

The gentleman from Oklahoma says 

we’re saying that you need a Federal 

regulator looking over the shoulders of 

every American. No, not every American; but I’m close to thinking of every 

American who runs a large financial 

institution, yeah. Of the people who 

lied about Libor, of the people at Capitol One who cheated consumers. 

Now, I am glad we have a consumer 

bureau that stepped in to protect the 

Americans there. It’s not every American who’s corrupt; it is too many in 

the financial area. 

We passed financial reform. I know 

some of the Republicans don’t like it. I 

read in the paper today, well, Mr. Romney says he’s going to repeal it, but the 

House Republicans say, oh, no, we 

can’t. So instead of repealing it in a 

head-on way or amending it in a headon way, they want to stop the rules. 

What this bill would do, if it ever became law, would be to say ‘‘no’’ to the 

Volcker rule. No, let’s not differentiate 

as to what kind of activities are legitimate for a bank to do or not. If an 

American bank that’s got deposit insurance wants to speculate and lose 

billions of dollars in derivative trades, 

let them be. 

This bill will stop us in a number of 

other areas with regard to derivatives, 

speculation where we want to put limits on what the nonusers of oil can buy 

so we can drive up the price. 

The notion that the American people 

are crying out for an end to regulation 

is not congruent with anything I have 

read or heard about the financial area. 

And I am on the Financial Services 

Committee. I’ve worked on that. 

This bill would fully apply here. It 

would prevent us from going forward 

with any of the pending rules in the financial reform bill. 

Now, they’ve taken awhile. They’re 

complicated. Many of them are done. 

Most of them will be done soon. This is 

an effort to re-deregulate derivatives, 

re-deregulate financial irresponsibility 

without standing up and saying so. 

The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I 

thank the gentleman. 

This is an effort to do re-deregulation 

by stealth. If they don’t want to regulate derivatives, if they think speculation’s a good thing, then let’s bring up 

a bill. After all, this isn’t the agriculture bill. You don’t have to be 

afraid of splitting your membership by 

trying to do it. 

This ought to be straightforward. Instead, they want to do it by stealth. 

They want to end our effort to bring 

regulation to the financial industry. 

And, yes, I would say to the gentleman from Oklahoma, when it comes 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
July 25, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5231 

to the people who have been running 

the large financial institutions, we do 

need more regulation, not less; and I 

believe the American people understand that and do not want to see the 

people who brought this terrible recession of 2008 from that financial irresponsibility set free of any restraint. 

Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, pursuant to 

the unanimous consent made in the 

House, I will insert the staff report 

from the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform entitled, ‘‘Continued Oversight of Regulatory Impediment to Job Creation,’’ the result of 

over 30 separate field hearings and 

hearings by the committee, and the 

work of countless hundreds of job creators around the country who have participated. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 

GOVERNMENT REFORM 

DARRELL ISSA (CA–49), Chairman 

STAFF REPORT 

July 19, 2012 

CONTINUING OVERSIGHT OF REGULATORY IMPEDIMENTS TO JOB CREATION: JOB CREATORS

STILL BURIED BY RED TAPE

SUMMARY

Rules and red tape imposed by the federal 

government choke economic expansion and 

job growth, according to job creators themselves. Despite hearing this message loud 

and clear, regulations implemented during 

the Obama Administration have moved aggressively in the opposite direction—the regulatory state continues to grow, adding billions of dollars in compliance costs to businesses and job creators. These costs will ultimately be paid by consumers. 

Although Obama Administration officials 

frequently proclaim it has issued fewer regulations than its predecessors, analysis by the 

Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform reaches a far different conclusion: 

the Obama Administration has issued far 

more of the most expensive group of regulations with a higher overall economic cost. 

The aggressive march of the regulatory 

state has been the subject of an ongoing, 

multiyear examination by the Committee. 

This staff report expands on earlier Committee work and documents how the regulatory state is proliferating with dire consequences for the economy, and how federal 

regulations continue to impede job growth 

and business expansion. 

From 2010 to 2011, the number of final rules 

issued by federal agencies rose from 3,573 to 

3,807—a 6.5 percent increase. During that 

same time frame, the number of proposed 

rules that will be finalized increased 18.8 percent. The published regulatory burden for 

2012 could exceed $105 billion, according to 

the American Action Forum, headed by a 

former director of the Congressional Budget 

Office. Since January 1, the federal government has imposed $56.6 billion in compliance 

costs and more than 114 million annual paperwork burden hours. 

Beyond this ‘‘routine’’ rulemaking, the 

number of rules with significant costs is on 

the rise. Analysis from the Heritage Foundation indicates that the Obama Administration issued 106 new rules in its first three 

years that collectively cost taxpayers more 

than $46 billion annually—four times the 

number of ‘‘major’’ regulations and five 

times the cost of rules issued in the prior administration’s first three years. 

Workers and job creators confirm that the 

oppressive regulatory red tape environment 

continues to hinder improvement. A recent 

Gallup poll found that nearly half of small 

businesses are not hiring because they are 

worried about new government regulations. 

Forty-four percent of likely voters say they 

believe regulations from the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) hurt the economy. 

Research conducted by The Winston Group 

found that 53 percent of voters say federal 

regulations are one of the major reasons the 

economy is struggling; 59 percent think that 

cutting regulations is vital to improving the 

economy, and 52 percent indicate that stopping new regulations would free employers 

to begin hiring. According to the National 

Federation of Independent Business, the 

issue of regulation and red tape is one of the 

single most important problems for small 

businesses. 

These views are held not just by poll respondents or business group members—senior Obama Administration officials have spoken out on the need to actively address regulatory impacts on job creation and economic 

growth. 

The White House has praised the Committee for pointing out deficiencies in its approach to regulations. Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) Administrator Cass Sunstein said ‘‘I’m especially 

grateful to you Mr. Chairman and to the 

committee as a whole for its constructive 

and important work on this issue over the 

past months. It’s very significant to try to 

get regulation in a place where it’s helpful to 

the economic recovery.’’ 

The OIRA Administrator has also said that 

expensive regulations can ‘‘increase prices, 

reduce wages, and increase unemployment 

(and hence poverty).’’ 

OIRA’s 2012 Draft Report to Congress on 

Federal Regulations concedes that ‘‘regulations . . . can place undue burdens on companies, consumers, and workers, and may cause 

growth and overall productivity to slow.’’ It 

also notes that ‘‘evidence suggests that domestic environmental regulation has led 

some U.S. based multinationals to invest in 

other nations (especially in the domain of 

manufacturing), and in that sense, such regulation may have an adverse effect on domestic growth.’’ 

Finally, OIRA agrees that ‘‘regulations can 

also impose significant costs on businesses, 

potentially damaging economic competition 

and capital investment,’’ if not carefully designed. 

This staff report examines three types of 

regulations (energy and environmental, 

labor, and financial services), and looks at 

both current and new/proposed rules, their 

costs and impacts on job creators. It concludes that until the government addresses 

the overwhelming cost, scope and impact of 

the ever-expanding regulatory state, it is not 

in a position to aid job creators and spur economic recovery. Moreover, the staff report 

suggests that until these regulations are addressed, high unemployment and slow economic growth will persist. 

KEY FINDINGS

From 2010 to 2011, the number of final rules 

issued by federal agencies rose from 3,573 to 

3,807—a 6.5 percent increase. During that 

same time frame, the number of proposed 

rules increased 18.8 percent. 

The published regulatory burden for 2012 

could exceed $105 billion, according to the 

American Action Forum, headed by a former 

director of the Congressional Budget Office. 

Analysis from the Heritage Foundation indicates that the Obama Administration 

issued 106 new rules in its first three years 

that collectively cost taxpayers more than 

$46 billion annually—four times the number 

of ‘‘major’’ regulations and five times the 

cost of rules issued in the prior administration’s first three years. 

In the past decade, the number of economically significant rules in the pipeline—those 

that could cost $100 million or more annually—has increased by more than 137 percent. 

Over 40 EPA regulations cited by job creators as barriers to growth and expansion in 

the Committee’s February 2011 staff report 

remain a problem. 

The Boiler Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) rule proposed in 2010 

will cost job creators up to $15 billion in regulatory compliance costs. A similar ‘‘Utility’’ MACT rule would cost providers $9.6 billion annually and result in the shutdown of 

25 percent of U.S. power generating units. 

EPA’s proposal to regulate coal combustion residuals (‘‘coal ash’’) usurps states’ 

previous role and exerts unprecedented federal control over the utility industry. More 

than half of the complaints received from 

business and industry groups expressed concern last year, while half of the complaints 

are new. Compliance costs range from $78–110 

billion over the next 20 years while job loss 

estimates range from 39,000, under a low estimate, to 316,000, under a high estimate. 

EPA’s E15 ethanol rule ‘‘places consumers 

and vehicle manufacturers at significant 

risk’’ but is proceeding despite these concerns. EPA estimates industry compliance at 

$3.64 million per year but also notes that half 

of existing retail outlets are incompatible 

with the fuel, and would need to purchase 

and install new equipment. 

Proposed fuel economy standards will increase the cost of new vehicles by at least 

$4,000 per vehicle while delivering less than 

half that amount in fuel savings and could 

result in the loss of as many as 220,000 automotive jobs. 

Tier 3 gasoline standards proposed by EPA 

would impose a total economic cost of approximately $8 billion on the industry and 

raise the cost of gasoline by six to nine cents 

per gallon for consumers. 

Rules attributed to the Dodd-Frank Act 

will grow from 36 implemented today to 

roughly 400 required under the act. Rules 

governing ‘‘conflict minerals’’ such as gold, 

tin, tantalum and tungsten will cost the industry $71 million per year and impact as 

many as 5,000 companies. The National Association of Manufacturers estimates true 

compliance costs for the rule to be $9–16 billion. 

A U.S. Chamber of Commerce/Business 

Roundtable survey notes that those impacted by a proposed ‘‘end user’’ rule effecting derivatives would have to sideline up to 

$6.7 billion in working capital and cost 

100,000 jobs. 

The National Labor Relations Board’s ‘‘notice posting rule’’ promoting unionization in 

the workplace will cost employers an estimated $386.4 million and in the words of one 

industry organization, ‘‘could set a disturbing precedent and chill job creation.’’ 

The Committee is publishing this staff report to tell the American people directly 

what job creators say is the true cost and 

impact of the Obama Administration’s regulatory agenda. 

For additional information please visit: 

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/ 

uploads/2012/07/staff-Report-FINAL.pdf. 

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 

from New York (Ms. BUERKLE). 

Ms. BUERKLE. Madam Chair, I stand 

here today in strong support of H.R. 

4078, the Red Tape Reduction and 

Small Business Creation Act, which 

takes important steps and strides to 

provide our businesses and our small 

businesses throughout this country 

with some certainty, the certainty 

that they so desperately need. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5232 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 25, 2012 

Every time I’m home in my district, 

I hear from my constituents, my small 

business owners. They want to know 

when is this deluge of regulations out 

of Washington going to end. And that’s 

what this bill addresses today. 

b 1550 

It’s such a harsh reminder that this 

administration’s policies are not working. 

Rather than looking ahead, our small 

businesses and our job creators are 

ducking and hiding behind the myriad, 

the deluge of mandates and regulations 

that so restrict their growth. This uncertainty that these regulations create 

is the enemy of growth, and it’s why 

our economy does not move forward, 

and it’s why it is so stagnant. 

This year, the Federal Register has 

reached nearly 42,000 pages with regulations that cost our American businesses $56.6 billion and that result in 

114 million hours of paperwork. That’s 

why our economy is not growing. They 

cannot even deal with the deluge of 

regulations coming out of Washington. 

Why should an owner of a supermarket in upstate New York spend his 

time dealing with the 15,000 pages of 

regulations from the Affordable Care 

Act rather than paying attention to 

the inventory in his grocery store? 

Simply put, Madam Chair, Washington’s attitude toward the private sector is discouraging. It’s time for Congress to reverse the trend and to let 

America’s job creators know that we 

stand beside them rather than in front 

of them, blocking their progress and 

their growth. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, I 

yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 

ranking member of the Energy and 

Commerce Committee, the gentleman 

from California (Mr. WAXMAN). 

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I rise 

in opposition to this bill. 

All year, the House Republicans have 

brought extreme bills to this floor to 

repeal commonsense safeguards. In 

fact, we have voted over 280 times this 

Congress to repeal or undermine landmark environmental laws like the 

Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. 

That’s not what the American people 

want. 

The legislation we are debating today 

takes this assault to a new level. It 

halts virtually all regulation until unemployment drops below 6 percent. I 

don’t see it. We are going to have an 

unprecedented attack on critical public 

health, safety and economic protections? We are going to let the marketplace solve all problems? 

This bill would undermine Medicare 

by preventing the issuance of updated 

reimbursement rates and by denying 

hospitals and clinics hundreds of millions of dollars in Medicare payments— 

because these are regulations as well. 

It would jeopardize the food supply by 

blocking produce safety rules that 

would prevent contaminated food from 

showing up on our local grocery store 

shelves. It would stop broadly supported tailpipe rules for cars and 

trucks that will save consumers 

money, slash pollution, and cut our dependence on oil. It would block rules to 

ensure health care quality and raise 

the bar for provider performance. 

According to the Congressional Budget Office, this legislation could even 

delay incentive auctions of spectrum 

by the FCC. These auctions would raise 

billions of dollars to build out the public safety communications system. 

This is a clear example of how this bill 

will kill jobs, not create them, and increase, not reduce, the deficit. 

Madam Chair, a lot of regulations are 

important and a lot of regulations create jobs, but we hear over and over 

again, Oh, we can’t burden the job creators with regulations. When we put 

regulations in place, it’s for a reason. 

There is a reason that we ought to let 

the regulations go forward and not stop 

them all as this bill would do. The reasons are to protect public health and 

safety. The reasons are to have a Medicare system that is up to date. The reasons are to make sure that our financial institutions have rules that apply 

to them and that we don’t let them 

make the decisions on their own. They 

may be job creators, but they were job 

destroyers in 2008. 

Republicans say they want to cut red 

tape, but this legislation does not cut 

red tape. It makes the rest of the government just like the House of Representatives—dysfunctional and unresponsive to the Nation’s pressing problems. I urge my colleagues to vote 

against this bill. I urge the American 

people to watch carefully who votes for 

it. 

Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, I now yield 

2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona, Dr. GOSAR. 

Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, as a business owner, this is what I get when I 

hear, The government is here to help 

us. Look at this red tape. Wow. That’s 

what a small business has to put up 

with just to create a business. That’s 

why I rise today in support of H.R. 4078, 

the Red Tape Reduction and Small 

Business Job Creation Act of 2012. 

A recent report released from Gallup 

suggests that 46 percent of all small 

business owners have put a freeze on 

new hiring because they are worried 

about regulations and costs. Clearly, 

sensible solutions and reforms are 

needed. This bill will allow small businesses to be free of the burdensome 

yoke of government regulation. For far 

too long, stifling bureaucracy and meddlesome mandates have stagnated job 

growth. Red tape has tied the hands 

and the feet of employers and entrepreneurs alike. 

Look at the maze. These binds which 

constrict the free flow of labor and capital will be cut by this bill, which simply states that any new major Federal 

regulations costing over $100 million 

may not be implemented until the unemployment rate falls to 6 percent. 

This will save an estimated $22.1 billion. 

Just as important, the upside down 

roller coaster that our small businesses 

and entrepreneurs have been on for the 

past few years can finally stop. Americans looking to start businesses, expand their business facilities, or hire 

more workers can plan for the future 

and put our economy back on a path to 

prosperity. 

As a small business owner for 25 

years, I am acutely aware of the way in 

which restrictive regulations and rules 

can hold a business owner hostage. 

Let’s free the private sector from this 

captivity. I urge a ‘‘yes’’ vote on the 

Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, may 

I inquire as to how much time both 

sides have. 

The CHAIR. The gentleman from 

Maryland has 6 minutes remaining. 

The gentleman from California has 9 

minutes remaining. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 21⁄2 minutes 

to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. KUCINICH). 

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very 

much, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. ISSA, and 

Members of the House. 

I’ve read this bill. There is something 

about it that we really need to understand, and that is that we just got 

through having a debate about the Federal Reserve. One of the reasons the 

Fed should be audited is that it is not 

fulfilling its responsibility for bringing 

about employment in this country. 

Now, this bill exempts the Federal 

Reserve. Think about it. We say we 

want to bring unemployment down to 6 

percent. The Fed, if you look at the 

Board of Governors’ report, has basically jettisoned the whole idea about 

bringing unemployment down. Right 

now, they’re establishing what I would 

call a new threshold of 5 to 6 percent 

unemployment. So, if our friends are 

successful with their bill, we won’t 

have jobs, and we won’t have regulations either. 

Hello? Read the report. 

I mean, we ought to be investigating 

why has the Fed stepped back from its 

job creation, and why are we exempting them from a bill in which we are 

actually taking the pressure off them 

for job creation. 

Now, look, we should be creating 

jobs. No question about it. I have a bill, 

H.R. 2990, that puts the Fed under 

Treasury and that let’s the government 

spend money into circulation and create millions of jobs. Put America back 

to work. Prime the pump of the economy, a full employment economy. It 

goes way past Humphrey-Hawkins. Get 

America back to work. America needs 

to get back to work. 

If that’s what my friends on the 

other side of the aisle are saying, we’re 

together on that. America has to get 

back to work—but we’re going to get 

back to work while having water that’s 

not safe to drink? air that’s not safe to 

breathe? We’re going to get back to 

work by having products that you 

don’t know your pets can consume? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
July 25, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5233 

Are we going to get back to work by 

having to worry about, when we go to 

various salad bars, if it’s something we 

can consume and whether or not there 

are proper food inspections? Are we 

going to get America back to work by 

not checking on airplane safety? 

Is that how we get America back to 

work? 

Come on. Whether you’re a Democrat 

or a Republican, there are certain regulations that are absolutely fundamental to running an organized society. I understand wedge issues—this is 

a political climate—but let’s not mix 

up this mutual concern that we have 

about creating jobs in this country by 

trying to score some points by saying, 

well, there are regulations that are 

bad. 

I’m sure there are regulations that 

don’t work. I’m not somebody who believes that government has the solution to everything. I know better than 

that. I’ve been here for 16 years. I understand that much. Yet I know one 

other thing, which is, when you take a 

broad approach in trying to knock out 

regulations, you’re looking for trouble. 

You’re going to create trouble. That’s 

what this does. So I am urging a ‘‘no’’ 

vote, and I’ll have more to say on an 

amendment that I have. 

b 1600 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, it’s now my 

honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. 

GUINTA). 

Mr. GUINTA. I thank the chairman 

for yielding the time. 

Mr. Chairman, I add my voice to calling for the passage of H.R. 4078, the Red 

Tape Reduction and Small Business 

Job Creation Act. 

One of the key provisions of this bill 

is title III, the Sunshine for Regulatory 

Decrees and Settlements Act. Certain 

environmental advocacy groups sue 

Federal agencies to issue regulations, 

and then agencies settle these lawsuits 

behind closed doors, which is also 

known as ‘‘sue and settle.’’ Only after a 

settlement has been agreed to does the 

public have any chance to provide any 

comment. This is a pointless exercise 

because the damage has already been 

done. More troubling, these settlements often allow advocacy groups and 

agencies to effectively dictate major 

policy on their own by circumventing 

the protections that exist for public 

participation in a regulatory system. 

This provision, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 

2012, promotes openness and transparency in the regulatory process, and 

it does that by requiring agencies to 

notify the public of these lawsuits before they’re settled and giving the public meaningful voice in the process. 

As Chairman ISSA knows from the 

field hearing he held on Great Bay in 

my district in the State of New Hampshire, my constituents and small businesses are facing this very issue. Communities, small businesses, and New 

Hampshire families are facing massive 

tax increases because outside organizations with political agendas are forcing 

the EPA into a sue or settle situation, 

costing Granite Staters on the seacoast 

hundreds of millions of dollars. This 

has been done behind closed doors 

without the community being at the 

table as a full negotiating partner, and 

this is wrong. 

We all want the Great Bay to be 

clean and to be protected, but sue and 

settle is not the way. In the end, the 

actions of a few politically driven organizations are costing small businesses 

and hurting New Hampshire families in 

an already difficult economy. 

Chairman ISSA, I want to thank you 

for coming to New Hampshire to shed 

light on this problem. For these reasons, I urge all Members to support 

this bill. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, may 

I ask how much time is remaining? 

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. LATOURETTE). The gentleman from Maryland 

has 31⁄2 minutes remaining. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I 

yield myself such time as I may consume. 

I just want to clear up something. It 

has been said that this would affect 

matters that would likely have an annual cost to the economy of over 

$100,000 or more, in other words, those 

that would be subject to the bill. But 

the piece that is left out on page 8 of 

the bill—and this is very crucial. It 

says: 

Or if OMB determines—or adversely affect—that is, legislation rules, proposed 

rules—that would adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, small entities or State, local, or tribal governments 

or communities. 

And, of course, the bill goes on to say 

that OMB may make a determination, 

but if there is an entity that is agreed, 

they can always go to court. It’s not 

accurate to say that it’s just limited to 

those types of regulations that would 

affect the economy to the tune of $100 

million. It actually affects a whole lot 

more than that. 

With that, I continue to reserve the 

balance of my time. 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, hopefully 

the gentleman would note that the language he just quoted is from the President’s executive order. It’s not some 

sort of pocket information, but, in fact, 

something the President of the United 

States felt was a reasonable set of language. 

With that, I yield 1 minute to the 

gentleman from Texas (Mr. 

FARENTHOLD). 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you, 

Chairman ISSA. 

Most Congressmen call their district 

staff workers caseworkers. I call my 

district workers red tape cutters, because that’s what they do. Unfortunately, we have to have a job like that 

because government red tape is so 

thick. A lot of what our caseworkers do 

is for veterans and Social Security recipients, but they also help our small 

businesses. 

When I’m back home, I hear time and 

time again from businesses about how 

the government is getting in the way 

of creating jobs, and if we would just 

tell them what to do and let them do it 

and quit changing the rules midstream, 

they would do it. That’s what this bill 

does, it tells the government: Stop. 

Don’t change the rules midstream until 

our economy is back on track. It’s a 

jobs bill, and it’s an opportunity to 

give our businesses the opportunity to 

get people hired. 

This Congress has been tireless in our 

pursuit of creating jobs by eliminating 

senseless and expensive government 

regulation. I’m confident this bill will 

pass the House, and I hope it has better 

luck than some of the other bills that 

we’ve passed, like the REINS Act, that 

also deals with regulation, when it gets 

across the Capitol and to the Senate. 

We have got to get these bipartisan 

jobs bills passed and signed into law. 

Americans know we have to cut the unemployment rate. To do that, we’re 

going to have to cut the red tape. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. ISSA. I now yield 2 minutes to 

the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 

HURT). 

Mr. HURT. I thank the chairman for 

yielding, and I thank him for his leadership on this issue. 

I rise today in support of this legislation that will save this country billions 

of dollars and create thousands of 

much-needed jobs. 

Mr. Chairman, ‘‘red tape’’ is a word 

we hear all too often in Washington, 

but when you get back to places like 

Danville, Virginia, and talk with the 

people who are stuck in it, you gain a 

new perspective on what Federal regulations mean to everyone outside of the 

beltway. 

As the Federal Government continues to grow in size and scope, our 

Main Street businesses continue to 

struggle. The President tells us that 

the private sector is doing just fine. 

The President tells us that if you’ve 

got a business, you didn’t build it. But 

the President has not told us how he 

plans to help our small business owners 

grow and create the jobs our local communities need. 

Our Nation has faced over 8 percent 

unemployment for more than 3 years. 

We’re being crushed under a rapidly accumulating $16 trillion debt, and both 

of these things have everything to do 

with the policies set forth in Washington that grow the Federal Government and strangle our Main Street 

businesses. 

Where others will not lead, the House 

will. That’s why we remain focused on 

adopting legislation like the bill we 

consider today, legislation that will remove the Federal Government as a barrier to job creation. This package of 

bills will lead us to responsible regulations and ensure that the economic impacts of Federal regulations are accounted for. Most importantly, it will 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5234 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 25, 2012 

give our small business owners across 

central and south Virginia the ability 

to hire and expand their businesses at 

a time when many are closing their 

doors. 

This legislation is the kind this country needs to turn the corner from a 

struggling economy to the America 

that we have known for generations, a 

country of limited government and unlimited opportunity. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, may 

I inquire as to whether or not the gentleman has other speakers? 

Mr. ISSA. I am prepared to close. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield myself such 

time as I may consume. 

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to 

say, in closing, that the debate today 

proves that this bill is an extreme attack on the regulatory system. 

Republicans have put critical protections on the line by proposing to shut 

down the regulatory process with a bill 

that was ill-conceived from the start 

and that was cobbled together so 

quickly it is riddled with flaws that 

render it unworkable. 

I might also say that one of the 

things that I’ve said over and over 

again, and I think the position has 

been—I know it’s the position of the 

President—that we must have balance 

with regard to regulations. I think that 

Mr. WAXMAN and certainly Mr. FRANK

were absolutely right. It’s not a question of distrust. It’s a question of making sure that we have regulations in 

place to protect the safety and welfare 

of our citizens, and we don’t need to 

look too far. 

When I look at my district and I see 

the many people who lost so much because of what happened on Wall Street 

and what happened just recently with 

regard to the banks, the fact is that 

regulation is needed. If any committee 

has had evidence of it, it is our committee, Oversight and Government Reform. 

We’ve heard no evidence today that 

regulations kill jobs. We’ve heard no 

evidence that regulations hurt our 

economy. We’ve heard countless examples of how regulations can improve 

the health and safety of Americans and 

save lives. It is so very important that 

we keep in mind that balance that I 

talked about. 

It’s also important that we keep in 

mind what this President has done. 

President Obama has made sure that 

he has taken a careful look at those 

rules, those regulations that were unnecessary. He has put forth less regulations than either former President 

Bush. He has slowed down the process 

of approving regulations. I think, 

clearly, he is headed in the right direction as to what I just said about a balanced approach. 

b 1610 

So I hope the American people understand that this legislation is not advancing their interests. I repeatedly 

said that the majority is forcing a false 

choice. We do not have to choose between creating jobs and protecting the 

health and safety of American families. 

We can and must do both. This legislation does neither, and I urge all our 

Members to vote against it. 

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Mr. ISSA. I yield myself such time as 

I may consume. 

I never thought I would hear former 

Chairman WAXMAN speak in terms of 

how dysfunctional Congress is, how we 

just don’t operate and can’t be trusted; 

but, clearly, I heard him say that 

today. 

I still believe in the institution that 

all of us belong to. In living up to our 

responsibility, Congress has the responsibility to pass laws; and it has an 

absolute obligation to oversee the administration of those laws. The executive branch, or administrative branch, 

actually, only has the right to create 

regulations and executive orders to 

support the laws that have been created. 

For too long, we have abrogated our 

responsibility. Former Chairman WAXMAN apparently would like to continue 

doing that, in what he said of our low 

rating and essentially repeating it. 

Until the unemployment rate reaches 

6 percent, taking back just less than 66 

out of 3,000 regulations last year and 

making them accountable either to fall 

into emergency requirements into specific categories of essential harm or to 

come to Congress would seem to be a 

small task. 

I have no doubt that if the shoe were 

on the other foot and President Bush 

was still in office and the Democrats 

were still in charge, that this bill 

would look more favorable to them. 

But that’s not what we should be here 

deciding, who it favors or disfavors. 

When this bill becomes law, it will, in 

fact, become law for the future for 

Democrats and Republican Members 

alike. 

The elimination of the ‘‘midnight 

regulations’’ that for so long have been 

abused by Presidents of both parties, 

H.R. 4607 absolutely is long overdue. 

President George W. Bush rushed excess amounts to close before he left. 

President Obama will, undoubtedly, do 

the same. That’s wrong. It’s simply 

wrong. And we know is. And we know 

that often, as this bill says, these are 

regulations that aren’t heard before 

the election and are concluded in those 

75 days before departure. 

It’s wrong. We know we need to stop 

it. We shouldn’t abrogate our responsibility. And the Members on the other 

side will suddenly decide, I’m sure, this 

is a better idea, should Mitt Romney be 

elected in the fall. 

This bill is supported by the Chamber 

of Commerce, Associated Builders & 

Contractors, the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, and the National Federation of Independent Businesses. 

The fact is, this is about simply saying not that we’re going to stop 3,000 

regulations, but that we’re going to 

slow and evaluate more carefully the 66 

largest of them by this administration 

last year. 

During debate, the administration 

was essentially lauded for having 

passed fewer regulations in numbers 

than President George W. Bush. I 

checked that during debate. That’s 

true. But that’s because President 

George W. Bush did regulatory changes 

to eliminate regulations, and those 

scored. When you actually look at the 

cost of regulations under this administration, the cost is dramatically higher. 

I will share with my colleagues on 

the other side of the aisle that cost is 

not just dollars and cents, that you 

have to look at all the benefits. But for 

too long, we’ve had ‘‘sue and settle.’’ 

We’ve had the ability for these determinations to be made without that due 

process of looking at both sides. 

So today, as we move this bill, I 

clearly appreciate the fact that the 

men and women of my committee—the 

staff, the hardworking people who 

never get seen in front of the camera, 

who, in fact, have worked through 30 

hearings, through countless interviews 

with job creators—have made sure that 

the right things are in this bill for the 

right reason. 

I urge passage, and I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman 

from Texas is recognized. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I 

yield myself such time as I may consume. 

Mr. Chairman, America’s economic 

recovery remains sluggish, with the national unemployment rate above 8 percent for over 40 months. The President 

promised that his $800 billion spending 

bill would keep unemployment under 8 

percent. Instead, the spending bill only 

added to the deficit, which has doubled 

under this administration. 

More than 12 million Americans are 

out of work, 700,000 more than when 

President Obama took office; and the 

median income of American families 

has dropped too. 

The President’s economic policies 

have failed, and his regulatory policies 

have made the economy worse. A recent Gallup poll found that among the 

85 percent of U.S. small businesses that 

are not hiring, nearly half cited ‘‘being 

worried about new government regulations’’ as the reason. 

President Obama has turned America 

into a regulation Nation. A Heritage 

Foundation study found that in his 

first 3 years in office, President Obama 

implemented 106 major rules that imposed $46 billion in additional annual 

regulatory costs on the private sector. 

That’s a new record. 

The President promised in his 2011 

State of the Union address to fix ‘‘rules 

that put an unnecessary burden on 

businesses,’’ but he has gone in the opposite direction. We need to encourage 

businesses to expand, not tie them up 

with red tape. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
July 25, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5235 

Today, Congress continues to fight 

the constricting red tape that comes 

from Washington by offering commonsense solutions that deserve bipartisan 

support. And that’s what we do today. 

Members of the Judiciary Committee 

introduced three of the titles in the 

Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act. Mr. GRIFFIN’s 

Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act gives 

small businesses a much-needed break 

from new regulations that cost the 

economy $100 million or more until the 

unemployment rate stabilizes at 6 percent. 

The Freeze Act is narrowly tailored 

to stop unnecessary economically significant regulations. It contains reasonable exceptions, such as health and 

safety, criminal or civil rights laws, 

trade agreements, and national security. The Freeze Act gives job creators 

confidence about future regulatory 

conditions, which will encourage them 

to make the investments that will 

jump-start our economy. 

The RAPID Act, introduced by the 

gentleman from Florida (Mr. ROSS), 

helps to create jobs as it streamlines 

the Federal environmental review and 

permitting process. It draws upon established definitions and concepts from 

existing regulations and even from the 

administration’s own recommendations. 

Employers and investors can’t move 

forward without necessary permits and 

without confidence in the process. The 

RAPID Act establishes reasonable, predictable deadlines for agencies to complete the permit review process and for 

lawsuits to be filed afterwards. 

The Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees 

and Settlements Act, introduced by the 

gentleman from Arizona (Mr. QUAYLE), 

ends the abuse of consent decrees and 

settlements to require more regulations. 

For many years, regulatory advocates and agencies have used consent 

decrees and settlements to establish 

new rules in secrecy, outside the regular rule-making procedures that provide for transparency and public participation. The ‘‘sue and settle’’ approach has enabled agencies to impose 

higher costs and avoid accountability 

since they can claim ‘‘the court made 

us do it.’’ 

Mr. QUAYLE’s legislation makes sure 

that the public and those affected by 

regulations have a say in these decrees 

and settlements. It also requires greater judicial scrutiny and helps to prevent an outgoing administration from 

unfairly setting its successor’s agenda 

through consent decrees. These and all 

of the titles of the Red Tape Reduction 

and Small Business Job Creation Act 

provide needed relief to small businesses. 

Economic growth depends on job creators, not Federal regulators. This legislation frees up businesses to spend 

more, invest more, and produce more 

in order to create more jobs for American workers. I urge my colleagues to 

support this commonsense bill. 

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance 

of my time. 

b 1620 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 

myself such time as I may consume. 

Could I begin by asking the distinguished chairman of the House Judiciary Committee this following inquiry: 

Is it not true that the United States of 

America has less regulation than almost any other industrialized country 

in the Western Hemisphere? 

I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Texas to respond. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I have no idea 

whether we have more or fewer regulations than other countries. I do know 

this: we have far more regulations 

today than we had 3 years ago. And I 

also know that the Obama administration has set a new record in the number of expensive, unnecessary regulations that it has suggested and implemented. 

I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, the gentleman 

is welcome. His answer is no, he 

doesn’t know. And I’m going to, in the 

course of this debate, try to share with 

him the fact that other industrialized 

nations have far more regulations than 

us, just to put things into some kind of 

relative proportion. 

Members of the House of Representatives, Joseph Stiglitz has talked about 

the subject of regulation. Here is something that he had to say about it that 

I think will set us in the right frame of 

mind to examine dispassionately the 

principle that is under examination 

this afternoon. He said this: 

The subject of regulation has been one of 

the most contentious, with critics arguing 

that regulations interfere with the efficiency 

of the market, and advocates arguing that 

well-designed regulation not only makes 

markets more efficient, but also helps to ensure the market outcome is more equitable. 

Interestingly, as the economy plunges into a 

slowdown, if not a recession, with more than 

2 million Americans expected to lose their 

homes, there is a growing consensus there 

was a need for more government regulation. 

If it is the case that better regulations could 

have prevented or even mitigated the downturn, the country and the world will be paying a heavy price for the failure to regulate 

adequately, and the social costs are no less 

grave, as hundreds of thousands of Americans will not only have lost their homes, but 

their lifetime savings as well. 

And so the measure before us, H.R. 

4078, by stopping or delaying rules from 

going into effect, seriously jeopardizes 

the safety and the soundness of our Nation’s economy and our society generally. 

Another fundamental problem with 

this proposal is that it myopically focuses on the cost of regulations while 

largely ignoring their overwhelming 

benefits. So this measure, with its 

misleadingly short title, will not result 

in creating jobs for one simple reason: 

there is no credible evidence establishing that regulations have any substantive impact on job creation. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve 

the balance of my time. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I 

yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 

North Carolina (Mr. COBLE), a senior 

member of the Judiciary Committee 

and the chairman of the Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank 

the distinguished chairman from Texas 

for having yielded, and I rise in support 

of H.R. 4078. 

I have the honor and privilege of 

serving as the chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law, which 

among other things has jurisdiction 

over the Administrative Procedures 

Act. Our subcommittee has spent an 

enormous amount of time and energy 

reviewing proposals to refine the manner in which our Federal Government 

formulates and implements regulations. I have encountered two philosophies on improving our regulatory system. One philosophy is we routinely review and improve regulations, while 

others advocate that the Federal Government should issue yet more regulations. 

It appears to me that the Obama administration has embraced the latter 

philosophy because red tape has been 

flying fast and furious during his tenure. His administration has proposed 

regulations that are expected to exceed 

$100 million at the rate of 125 every 2 

years. Currently, there are 24 major 

rules in the pipeline for review by the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs. The results have been telling. 

During the first 26 months of the 

Obama administration, our Federal 

Government has added $40 billion of annual regulatory cost to our economy, 

and this year the Federal Register already exceeds 40,000 pages. 

In the transportation arena, new 

DOT passenger protection regulations 

are estimated by the American Aviation Institute to cost $1.7 billion annually. In total, there are 10 new Federal 

aviation regulations that will cost $4 

billion annually. Although they will 

produce no significant benefit to the 

traveling public, they certainly and inevitably will be passed along in the 

form of fees, reduced services, or increased prices. 

Since 2008, the combined budget of 

regulatory agencies has ballooned 16 

percent, topping $54 billion. During the 

same time, employment at the agencies grew 13 percent while our economy 

only grew by 5 percent and the number 

of private sector jobs shrunk by 5.6 percent. 

The scene is ominous, and I think it 

reflects what has happened to our economy, but I also do not believe that the 

situation is hopeless. The need for regulatory reform has been emulated by 

every administration since President 

Ronald Reagan, but efforts have not 

been successful. Enacting H.R. 4078 will 

be a step in the right direction. 

Several titles of this legislation 

which were approved by the Judiciary 

Committee will implement immediate 

relief. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5236 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 25, 2012 

The original provisions of H.R. 4078, 

the Regulatory Freeze Act, could reportedly save our economy $22.1 billion 

and save thousands of jobs without 

jeopardizing our safety. 

H.R. 3862, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act, 

will end the practice of special interests using consent decrees to bypass 

the regulatory process and imposing 

their will and priorities on affected 

communities. 

H.R. 4377, the RAPID Act, will help 

end the permitting logjam that has stifled development investment without 

diminishing a single environmental 

standard or protection. 

Regulations that are narrowly tailored, effective, and routinely reviewed 

can make our society safer and our 

economy stronger, but when they are 

ineffective or inefficient, our security 

is jeopardized, and so is our economy. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 

myself such time as I may consume. 

I direct an inquiry to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. COBLE) to ask him if he is 

aware of the fact that the Obama administration has accomplished and accumulated net benefits of regulations 

in the last 3 fiscal years that exceed $91 

billion? 

b 1630 

This comes from the Office of Management and Budget, and it’s more 

than 25 times the net benefits of regulations issued by the Bush administration for a comparable period of time. 

I would yield to the distinguished 

gentleman for a response. 

Mr. COBLE. No, I was not aware of 

that. But job creators need some certainty about the regulatory forecast to 

make the kind of investments that will 

create jobs. The Freeze Act is carefully 

drafted to only freeze those regulations 

that cost the economy $100 million or 

more. Thus, a regulation that has $100 

million in benefits would not be frozen 

by the bill. 

Mr. CONYERS. Are you telling me 

that the freeze will be helpful to creating jobs? Are you telling me in response to my question that the freeze 

will be helpful to create jobs? 

I yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. COBLE. Yes, I am telling you 

that. 

Mr. CONYERS. But do you accept the 

Office of Management and Budget’s 

findings that the benefits of regulations by the current administration in 

the last 3 fiscal years exceeded $91 billion? 

Mr. COBLE. Well, I don’t know that, 

but if you will permit me, I will yield 

to the chairman for that. 

Mr. CONYERS. You may not. You’re 

not able to yield because I yielded to 

you. So you don’t know? 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. If the gentleman would yield to me, I would be 

happy to try to respond. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I just wanted to 

ask the gentleman. I didn’t mean to 

make this as prolonged as it has become, but I don’t think his response of 

a freeze was an adequate response to 

my question. 

Mr. COBLE. I was not aware of the 

questions you put to me. I can neither 

embrace nor reject that. 

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for his attempted response. 

I would now like to yield 2 minutes 

to the gentlewoman from upstate New 

York, Ms. KATHY HOCHUL, who serves 

with great distinction on the Armed 

Services Committee. 

Ms. HOCHUL. I thank the gentleman 

for yielding. 

On February 12, 2009, Flight 3407 

crashed into a house in my district, 

killing all the passengers and an individual in his home. Out of that devastation arose a spirit that actually 

united this Congress in enacting flight 

safety and pilot training rules that 

would have prevented the crash. The 

families never gave up, coming to talk 

to Members of Congress over 50 times 

over 3 years, and they are eagerly 

awaiting the final implementation of 

potentially lifesaving rules. It sounds 

like a happy ending, doesn’t it? 

Yet, this week, because the House 

Rules Committee refused to allow my 

amendment to protect those specific 

rules, we are at risk of losing all those 

hard-fought, bipartisan safety reforms. 

With the so-called Regulatory Freeze 

Act, these reforms would simply die. 

So those who voted for them in the 

past are now calling them job killing? 

Well, I call them people saving. 

Listen, I know we need to end overburdensome regulations, and I voted 

against many of them, the ones that 

hurt our farmers and small businesses. 

I hear about that in upstate New York. 

But there’s a commonsense way to do 

it. But to freeze all government regulations, all of them, regardless of the 

health and safety of our citizens is over 

the top, even for this town. 

Flight safety rules are just one example. The bill would also block benefits 

for disabled and homeless veterans, it 

would hurt seniors, and it would eliminate rules that ensured taxpayer dollars are used for goods made in America. This only proves that Washington 

is broken and we need to fix it. 

I urge my colleagues to vote ‘‘no’’ on 

this senseless regulation and this rule. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I 

yield myself 30 seconds to respond to a 

question that the gentleman from 

Michigan posed a few minutes ago. 

Mr. Chairman, I’d like to include for 

the RECORD an article from earlier this 

year that appeared in The Economist 

magazine. This is a magazine that is 

one of the oldest, most respected 

sources of news and analysis, and it is 

favorably disposed toward the Obama 

administration. But it published an article detailing how the Obama administration systematically manipulates the 

cost-benefit analysis in agency rulemaking. 

This manipulation deliberately inflates benefits and minimizes the cost, 

the article says. The Economist goes so 

far as to call the administration’s costbenefit analysis ‘‘highly suspect’’ and 

‘‘subject to the whims of the people in 

power.’’ 

[From the Economist, Feb. 18, 2012] 

MEASURING THE IMPACT OF REGULATION

THE RULE OF MORE—RULE-MAKING IS BEING

MADE TO LOOK MORE BENEFICIAL UNDER

BARACK OBAMA

WASHINGTON, DC: In December Barack 

Obama trumpeted a new standard for mercury emissions from power plants. The rule, 

he boasted, would prevent thousands of premature deaths, heart attacks and asthma 

cases. The Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) reckoned these benefits were worth up 

to $90 billion a year, far above their $10 billion-a-year cost. Mr. Obama took a swipe at 

past administrations for not implementing 

this ‘‘common-sense, cost-effective standard’’. 

A casual listener would have assumed that 

all these benefits came from reduced mercury. In fact, reduced mercury explained 

none of the purported future reduction in 

deaths, heart attacks and asthma, and less 

than 0.01% of the monetary benefits. Instead, 

almost all the benefits came from concomitant reductions in a pollutant that was not 

the principal target of the rule: namely, fine 

particles. 

The minutiae of how regulators calculate 

benefits may seem arcane, but matters a lot. 

When businesses complain that Mr. Obama 

has burdened them with costly new rules, his 

advisers respond that those costs are more 

than justified by even higher benefits. His 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA), which vets the red tape spewing out 

of the federal apparatus, reckons the ‘‘net 

benefit’’ of the rules passed in 2009–10 is 

greater than in the first two years of the administrations of either George Bush junior 

or Bill Clinton. 

But those calculations have been criticised 

for resting on assumptions that yield higher 

benefits and lower costs. One of these assumptions is the generous use of ancillary 

benefits, or ‘‘co-benefits’’, such as reductions 

in fine particles as a result of a rule targeting mercury. 

Mr. Obama’s advisers note that co-benefits 

have long been included in regulatory costbenefit analysis. The logic is sound. For instance, someone may cycle to work principally to save money on fuel, parking or bus 

fares, but also to get more exercise. Both 

sorts of benefit should be counted. 

The controversy arises from the overwhelming role that co-benefits play in assessing Mr. Obama’s rule-making. Fully twothirds of the benefits of economically significant final rules reviewed by OIRA in 2010 

were thanks to reductions in fine particles 

brought about by regulations that were actually aimed at something else, according to 

Susan Dudley of George Washington University, who served in OIRA under George Bush 

(see chart). That is double the share of cobenefits reported in Mr. Bush’s last year in 

office in 2008. 

If reducing fine particles is so beneficial, it 

would surely be more transparent and efficient to target them directly. As it happens, 

federal standards for fine-particle concentrations already exist. But the EPA routinely 

claims additional benefits from reducing 

those concentrations well below levels the 

current law considers safe. That is dubious: a 

lack of data makes it much harder to know 

the effects of such low concentrations. 

Another criticism of the Obama administration’s approach is its heavy reliance on 

‘‘private benefits’’. Economists typically justify regulation when private market participants, such as buyers and sellers of electricity, generate costs—such as pollution— 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
July 25, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5237 

that the rest of society has to bear. But fuel 

and energy-efficiency regulations are now 

being justified not by such social benefits, 

but by private benefits like reduced spending 

on fuel and electricity. 

Private benefits have long been used in 

cost-benefit analysis but Ms. Dudley’s data 

show that, like co-benefits, their importance 

has grown dramatically under Mr. Obama. 

Ted Gayer of the Brookings Institution notes 

that private benefits such as reduced fuel 

consumption and shorter refuelling times account for 90% of the $388 billion in lifetime 

benefits claimed for last year’s new fueleconomy standards for cars and light trucks. 

They also account for 92% and 70% of the 

benefits of new energy-efficiency standards 

for washing machines and refrigerators respectively. 

The values placed on such private benefits 

are highly suspect. If consumers were really 

better off with more efficient cars or appliances, they would buy them without a prod 

from government. The fact that they don’t 

means they put little value on money saved 

in the future, or simply prefer other features 

more. Mr. Obama’s OIRA notes that a growing body of research argues that consumers 

don’t always make rational choices; Mr. 

Gayer counters that regulators do not make 

appropriate use of that research in their calculations. 

Under Mr. Obama, rule-makers’ assumptions not only enhance the benefits of rules 

but also reduce the costs. John Graham of 

Indiana University, who ran OIRA under Mr. 

Bush, cites the new fuel-economy standards 

as an example. They assume that electric 

cars have no carbon emissions, although the 

electricity they use probably came from 

coal. They also assume less of a ‘‘rebound effect’’—the tendency of people to drive more 

when their cars get better mileage—than was 

the case under Mr. Bush. 

Mr. Bush’s administration was sometimes 

accused of the opposite bias: understating 

benefits and overstating costs. At one point 

his EPA considered assigning a lower value 

to reducing the risk of death for elderly people since they had fewer years left to live; it 

eventually backed down. Mr. Obama’s EPA 

has considered raising the value of cutting 

the risk of death by cancer on the ground 

that it is a more horrifying way to die than 

others. 

More consistent cost-benefit analysis 

would reduce such controversies. Michael 

Greenstone of the Hamilton Project, a liberal-leaning research group, thinks that 

could be done through the creation of a nonpartisan congressional oversight body using 

the best evidence available to vet regulations, much as the Congressional Budget Office vets fiscal policy. It would also re-evaluate old regulations to see if the original 

analysis behind them was still valid. Rulemaking would still require judgment, but it 

would be less subject to the whims of the 

people in power. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to 

the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 

GRIFFIN), a member of the Judiciary 

Committee and the sponsor of the legislation we consider today. 

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to say 

that the idea that this bill will stop 

good, reasonable, commonsense, and 

much-needed regulations is nonsense. 

It simply requires Congress to have a 

role. And after all, Congress is the body 

that authorizes laws and regulations in 

the first place. That just makes sense. 

The complications that so many complain about, I call checks and balances. 

I rise in support of H.R. 4078, the Red 

Tape Reduction and Small Business 

Job Creation Act. This bill would 

freeze significant regulations, those 

costing the economy $100 million or 

more, until nationwide unemployment 

falls to 6 percent or below. 

Many of my friends on the other side 

say there’s no connection between excessive and overly burdensome regulation and job creation. They must have 

been asking their favorite economist 

and not talking to actual job creators. 

Even President Obama disagrees. 

In a January 2011 Wall Street Journal op-ed, President Obama wrote: 

Sometimes, those rules have gotten out of 

balance, placing unreasonable burdens on 

business—burdens that have stifled innovation and have a chilling effect on growth and 

jobs. 

He has at least given lip service to 

the problem. 

Small businesses like Razor Chemical, a manufacturer of environmentally friendly cleaning supplies in 

North Little Rock, Arkansas, bear the 

brunt of regulatory compliance costs. 

According to the government’s Small 

Business Administration, complying 

with current Federal regulations already costs at least $1.75 trillion every 

year, adding more than $10,000 in overhead per small business employee— 

which is 30 percent higher than the regulatory costs facing large firms. 

Half of all private sector employees 

in the United States are employed by a 

small business job creator—exactly the 

type of folks who are getting hammered by the Obama administration’s 

aggressive regulatory agenda. In its 

first 3 years, the Obama administration 

created 120 new major regulations, 

costing Americans more than $46 billion each year. That’s more than four 

times the number and five times the 

cost of major regulations created by 

the Bush administration in its first 3 

years. 

As the lead sponsor of this bill, I 

made sure it carefully targets the most 

harmful regulations while making exceptions for Federal rules necessary for 

national security, trade agreements, 

enforcement of criminal and civil 

rights laws, and imminent threats to 

health or safety. 

It also includes a provision allowing 

the President to seek congressional approval for other regulations that he 

thinks are absolutely critical. And, in 

fact, with that waiver, you can pretty 

much pass any regulation as long as 

Congress agrees. 

In his State of the Union address, 

President Obama admitted, ‘‘There’s 

no question that some regulations are 

outdated, unnecessary or too costly.’’ 

If there’s no question about the problem, he should embrace the House’s solution. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 

myself as much time as I may consume 

to ask the distinguished member of the 

Judiciary Committee, Mr. TIM GRIFFIN

of Arkansas, if he is aware that the 

President, as he’s correctly stated, supports regulation as a general principle 

but that he opposes very strongly H.R. 

4078, the Regulatory Freeze for Jobs 

Act of 2012? 

I would yield to the gentleman for a 

response. 

b 1640 

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Well, I 

thank the gentleman. 

First of all, I don’t know anyone 

who’s antiregulation. It’s the excessive 

and overly burdensome regulations 

that are the problems. 

I have a 2-year-old baby, John, and a 

4-year-old, Mary Katherine. I want 

clean air and clean water for them. 

I understand the need for reasonable, 

commonsense regulations, but that’s 

not what we’re talking about here, 

with all due respect. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, if I could interrupt the gentleman, this is not about 

what your opinion is or mine. I’m asking you about the President’s opinion. 

The President, as you quite accurately said, is supportive of regulation, 

but he is specifically opposed to this 

regulation, and I would like to quote to 

you exactly what he said about H.R. 

4078: 

The bill would undermine critical public 

health and safety protections, introduce 

needless complexity and uncertainty in 

agency decisionmaking, and interfere with 

agency performance of statutory mandates. 

Now, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. MILLER), an outstanding member of the Financial Services Committee. 

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. 

Chairman, the astronomical estimates 

we hear on the cost of regulation assume that no business would ever do 

anything that any regulation requires 

unless there was a regulation requiring 

them to do it. 

The truth is that most businesses 

really want to do the right thing. Most 

businesses try to have a safe workplace. Most businesses try not to pollute the air and pollute the water and 

release toxic chemicals that are going 

to affect public health. Most businesses 

want to have safe products. They don’t 

want to produce baby formulas that 

are going to hurt infants. Those folks 

do the right things. 

The other folks who don’t want to do 

that and would save a little bit of 

money by not doing anything that 

common decency requires, in addition 

to regulations, they hire lobbyists and 

they make campaign contributions. 

Those are the folks that we need regulations for. 

Mr. Chairman, most Americans don’t 

know what this bill really does. They 

don’t know what a ‘‘freeze on significant regulations’’ really means without a long explanation, and a reporter 

who’s trying to get air time to talk 

about this bill or print space is not 

going to have much luck. This bill is 

just too in the weeds, and Republicans 

obviously think that there is public 

safety in the weeds. 

If Republicans were to try to bring a 

bill to the floor that openly repealed 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5238 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 25, 2012 

the Wall Street Reform Act, the Clean 

Water Act, the Food and Safety Act, 

and on and on, that bill would get some 

attention. This bill does much the 

same thing as repealing those acts but 

without being honest about it. They 

would have to explain themselves to 

their constituents if they just up and 

repealed those laws. Instead, Republicans are speaking in political gobbledygook. They don’t tell folks what this 

bill is really doing. It’s like adults who 

spell out words so their children won’t 

know what they’re talking about. 

Their constituents, Republicans hope, 

will not know what ‘‘red tape reduction’’ means, really. It sounds good, 

but the effect is to undo all of the protections that we depend upon from our 

government. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I 

yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 

Florida (Mr. ROSS), who is a member of 

the Judiciary Committee and a sponsor 

of the RAPID Act, which is a part of 

this legislation. 

Mr. ROSS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, 

our country is in the midst of the worst 

economic crisis since the Great Depression. Much of the blame lies here in 

Washington where living beyond our 

means and micromanaging the economy is, to quote some in this town, 

‘‘just the way Washington works.’’ 

Well, Mr. Chairman, Washington 

doesn’t work. Any business that has 

tried to break ground and build something knows what I’m talking about: 

dozens of Federal agencies representing 

varied interests competing against 

each other while special interest 

groups wait in the wings to hold 

projects hostage for ransom. 

Mr. Chairman, allow me to sum up 

what our permitting process should be. 

Our Federal permitting and review processes must provide a transparent, consistent, 

and predictable path for both project sponsors and affected communities. They must 

ensure that agencies set and adhere to 

timelines and schedules for completion of reviews, set clear permitting performance 

goals, and track progress against those 

goals. They must encourage early collaboration among agencies, project sponsors, and 

affected stakeholders in order to incorporate 

and address their interests and minimize 

delays. 

What I just read is verbatim from a 

March 2012 executive order by President Barack Obama, and I agree with 

the President 100 percent. 

Mr. Chairman, we achieve these goals 

of the President in H.R. 4078, and it 

could not come soon enough for those 

looking for work. A March 2011 study 

conducted by the United States Chamber of Commerce identified some 351 

projects that are being stymied by the 

current regulatory review process; 1.9 

million jobs are on hold, $1.1 trillion 

economic impact to this country. 

These jobs are not CEOs or jet-setters. These jobs are miners. They’re 

machinists. They’re blue collar workers. I know because I’ve watched this 

happen in my community where 200 

jobs were lost because, after 7 years 

and 14 Federal, State, and local agencies went through a permitting process, a company then, 1 month later, 

was shut down in their project because 

some environmental group went to a 

very lenient judge and shut them down, 

moms and dads wondering where their 

mortgage payment and supper would 

come from. They wondered why an environmental activist group—that I can 

tell you does not represent the interest 

of my district—could put them out of 

work. 

Make no mistake, Mr. Chairman, 

these projects are halted because businesses that will invest billions in a 

project cannot do so without some idea 

of certainty. 

Some say this legislation will allow 

corporations to harm our clean air and 

clean water. I say to that: Nonsense. 

This part of my legislation merely says 

that all parties, from environmental 

groups to government agencies, must 

be at the table sharing concerns and offering remedies from the start. It says 

that the process has a time limit and 

that government must meet those time 

limits. It says that, if you don’t get in 

at the beginning, you can’t come in 

after years of hard work and remediation and use a sympathetic judge to 

shut it down. 

This is not an academic exercise either. This same process was used in 

2005 when the House voted 412–8 to impose the SAFETEA-LU program, which 

provided the same detailed streamlining procedures that have now reduced the permitting process under 

NEPA in transportation highway construction from 73 months to 37 months. 

Mr. Chairman, the process is broken. 

This legislation presents solutions that 

are eminently sensible and immediately effective. For these reasons, I 

urge my colleagues to support this bill 

and give millions of our fellow citizens 

a hope for a better future. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 

myself such time as I may consume. 

I’d just like the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. ROSS) to 

know that later on I’m going to introduce over 60 outstanding leaders, 

economists, and organizational heads 

that take a completely different view 

from the distinguished gentleman from 

Florida, and I’d like him to examine 

those documents. 

I am pleased to yield such time as he 

may consume to the former chairman 

of the Education and Labor Committee 

from California, GEORGE MILLER. 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 

I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. Chairman, the bill before us 

today is nothing more than a cynical 

attempt to put the profits of well-connected special interests above the interests of working families and middle 

class Americans. But this is nothing 

new. In this House, ideology prevails 

over bipartisanship, the powerful over 

the middle class families, politics over 

job creation, and brinksmanship over 

cooperation. 

Congress has paid the price in its approval ratings, but low approval ratings do not compare to the damage 

that this sort of politics inflicts upon 

the American people and our economy. 

Indeed, our Nation’s working families 

are paying the price. 

There was a chance for the House to 

put working people first by allowing 

the full debate and vote on a number of 

amendments filed by Democrats that 

would have put people first. Unfortunately, the House Republican leadership blocked many of these amendments from being considered for this 

legislation. 

One amendment would have ensured 

that ‘‘Buy America’’ provisions could 

be implemented. Another amendment 

would have facilitated job protection 

and family leave for military families. 

b 1650 

Another would have insured that 

Federal contractors recruit and employ 

veterans. 

Another amendment would have allowed health and safety officials to 

continue their efforts to better protect 

the Nation’s miners from black lung 

disease. The facts are indisputable. 

Black lung is on the rise again, and 

some mine operators are exploiting 

loopholes and obsolete rules to evade 

compliance. The present system is 

badly broken, and the improvements 

are desperately needed. 

It’s time to move forward with modern protections based upon years of 

careful scientific study. Blocking efforts by the Mine Safety and Health 

Administration to modernize miner 

protections will only cost the lives, careers, and family income of those who 

go underground every day to provide 

the energy that this country needs. 

Mr. Chairman, this bill puts the lives 

and the well-being of working people in 

serious peril. It threatens the effort to 

protect American jobs. It’s not what 

the American people sent us here to do. 

It is well past time to put these 

transparently political efforts behind 

us and work together to re-energize the 

economy, to grow and to strengthen 

the middle class. And I urge my colleagues to vote against this very special interest bill. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I 

yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 

Arizona (Mr. QUAYLE), a member of the 

Judiciary Committee and the sponsor 

of the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees 

and Settlements Act, which is a part of 

this legislation. 

Mr. QUAYLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in 

support of the Red Tape Reduction and 

Small Business Jobs Creation Act. 

Now, time and time again, when I 

talk to small business owners in my 

district, they say that the number one 

challenge holding them back from expanding their business and hiring more 

workers is uncertainty in regulation 

and taxation. 

The current pro-regulatory administration has issued nearly four times 

the number of regulations as the previous administration. The administration’s own numbers show that U.S. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
July 25, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5239 

businesses spent over 8.8 billion hours 

complying with Federal paperwork requirements. To put this into perspective, this is equal to 1 million years of 

filling out government paperwork. 

Mr. Chairman, one of these costly 

regulations that the EPA is currently 

imposing is the Regional Haze Rule 

that could close down power plants 

across the country, all for aesthetics. 

This regulation affects the Navajo generating station in Arizona, which could 

cost $1.1 billion in initial compliance 

costs, hundreds of Arizona jobs, and 

cost $90 million a year, increasing the 

cost of electricity and water across the 

State of Arizona. 

And what does $90 million a year get 

us? 

Well, according to the administration’s own study, they found inconclusive evidence that these regulations 

would improve visibility at all. 

Across the country, pro-regulatory 

environment groups are suing the EPA 

and forcing these haze requirements 

through settlement and consent decrees. In my home State of Arizona, 

the EPA entered into a consent decree 

with nine environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense Fund, which will affect the emission control technology at 

coal-fired power plants throughout the 

State. 

Regulations have costly and job-killing implications, and it is important 

that the rulemaking process is not 

written behind closed doors by activist 

groups and regulatory agencies. 

I am pleased that a bill that I have 

sponsored is included in this package, 

H.R. 3862, the Sunshine for Regulatory 

Decrees and Settlements Act. This legislation provides transparency to these 

sue-and-settle agreements and consent 

decrees, which are used by activist 

groups to dictate regulations behind 

closed doors, and often contrary to 

congressional intent, if an agency 

misses a statutory deadline. 

My bill ensures that interested parties will have an opportunity to provide comments and requires courts to 

consider the impact on States and 

tribes. Additionally, my bill makes it 

easier for future administrations to 

modify consent decrees as circumstances and facts dictate. 

This legislation is increasingly necessary as more statutory deadlines slip 

due to the large number of 

rulemakings that were mandated during the previous Congress, notably in 

ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank. 

I urge my colleagues to support this 

pro-growth bill. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 

2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 

New York (Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ), the ranking member of the Small Business 

Committee. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. I thank the ranking member for yielding. 

I rise in opposition to this ill-conceived measure which will do nothing 

to promote small business growth. 

Small businesses everywhere need help. 

They require affordable credit and 

greater demand for their services. Yet 

today we are focused on legislation 

that does nothing to address these 

challenges and, instead, pushes an extreme agenda. 

Despite what some assert, regulation 

is not among entrepreneurs’ top concerns. In fact, surveys note that 85 percent of small business owners believe 

regulation is necessary. And I have 

with me a survey that was conducted 

last February by the American Sustainable Business Council, and I will 

enter this survey into the RECORD. 

OPINION POLLING: THE ECONOMIC STATE OF

SMALL BUSINESS

[Feb. 2012] 

(By the American Sustainable Business 

Council, Main Street Alliance, and Small 

Business Majority) 

SUMMARY

In January and February 2012, the American Sustainable Business Council, Main 

Street Alliance and Small Business Majority 

released polling that asked small employers 

across the country about key issues impacting the small business community. These included access to credit; proposals in the 

American Jobs Act to boost the economy; 

regulations; taxes; and money in politics. 

Respondents were politically diverse: 50% 

identified as Republican, 32% as Democrat 

and 15% as independent. 

The poll found nine in 10 small business 

owners have a negative view of the role 

money plays in politics. The results showed 

90% of small business owners see the availability of credit as a problem for small business and they strongly favor increasing the 

lending authority of community banks and 

credit unions. We also learned that entrepreneurs support current proposals being debated in Congress that aim to boost the 

economy and create jobs, particularly investments in infrastructure. 

The polling revealed that consumer demand—not regulation—is small business 

owners’ greatest concern. In fact, 86% see 

regulation as a necessary part of a modern 

economy and three-quarters believe it is necessary to level the playing field between 

small and large businesses. Lastly, 90% of 

small business owners believe large corporations use loopholes to avoid taxes that small 

businesses have to pay, and three-quarters 

say their own business suffers because of it. 

Below are the extended main findings of 

the poll. 

METHODOLOGY

The poll reflects an Internet survey of 500 

small business owners across the country, 

conducted by Lake Research. It has a margin 

of error of +/¥4.4%. The survey was conducted between December 8, 2011 and January 4, 2012. Researchers used a random sample of small business owners obtained from 

Harris Interactive, with additional samples 

from InfoUSA. 

MONEY IN POLITICS

Polling results that revealed small business owners’ attitudes toward money in politics and the Citizens United decision were released on Jan. 18. 

Small business owners view the Citizens 

United decision as bad for small business: 

66% of those surveyed said the two-year-old 

ruling that gives corporations unlimited 

spending power in elections is bad for small 

businesses. Only 9% said it was good for 

small business. 

Small business owners have a negative 

view of the role money plays in politics overall: 88% of respondents view the role money 

plays in politics negatively; 68% view it very 

negatively. 

ACCESS TO CREDIT AND PROPOSALS TO BOOST

THE ECONOMY

Poll results that revealed small business 

owners’ attitudes toward credit availability 

were released on Jan. 26, 2012 in conjunction 

with results showing their views on proposals in the American Jobs Act. 

Small business owners say access to credit 

is a problem: 90% of respondents agree the 

availability of small business loans is a problem, and 60% have faced difficulty themselves when trying to obtain loans that 

would grow their businesses. 

Small business owners agree it is harder 

now to obtain loans: 61% of respondents say 

it is harder now than it was four years ago to 

get a loan. 

Small business owners support making it 

easier for community banks and credit 

unions to lend more: 90% of owners support 

making it easier for community banks and 

credit unions to lend to small businesses, 

and more than three-quarters, or 77%, support creating incentives for community 

banks to lend more. By more than a 2:1 ratio, 

respondents support increasing credit 

unions’ lending cap from 12.25% to 27.5% of a 

credit union’s assets. 

Support for reforming and regulating credit cards is extremely high among small business owners: 82% support tighter credit card 

regulations, such as clearer disclosure of 

terms and caps on interest rates, including 

47% who strongly support these regulations; 

52% of entrepreneurs have used credit cards 

to help finance their own business. 

Respondents favor reducing collateral requirements: 60% of small business owners 

support reducing collateral requirements so 

loans can become more accessible. 

The housing and mortgage crisis has 

harmed consumer demand for small businesses: Almost three-quarters of small business owners, or 73%, feel their business has 

been hurt by a drop in consumer demand 

stemming from the housing and mortgage 

meltdown. 

Small business owners believe reducing the 

principal on underwater mortgages will 

boost spending: 57% of respondents agree reducing the principal on underwater mortgages to the current market value would 

boost consumer spending, helping small businesses regain their vigor through increased 

profits. 

Small business owners strongly support investment in infrastructure: 69% favor investing $50 billion in infrastructure projects that 

would create jobs. 

Entrepreneurs favor creating a nationwide 

wireless network: 59% of those surveyed are 

in support of creating this kind of network 

and expanding access to high-speed wireless 

services. 

REGULATIONS

Polling results that revealed small business owners’ attitudes toward government 

regulations were released on Feb. 1, 2012. 

Weak demand is small business owners’ 

biggest problem: 34% of respondents said 

weak demand is their biggest problem, while 

15% cited the cost of health coverage and 

other benefits. Only 14% said it is the level 

of government regulation. The level of taxes 

came in fourth place with 12% and competition with larger companies garnered 10%. 

Small business owners believe eliminating 

incentives to move jobs overseas would do 

the most to create jobs: 24% of small business owners said eliminating incentives for 

employers to move jobs overseas would do 

the most to create jobs, and 14% called for 

tax cuts. Thirteen percent of respondents 

said increasing consumer purchasing would 

be the biggest job creator and 12% believe 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5240 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 25, 2012 

jobs lie in improving infrastructure like 

roads and bridges. Only 10% of respondents 

said reducing regulation would do the most 

to create jobs. 

Small business owners see regulations as a 

necessary part of a modern economy and believe they can live with them if they’re fair 

and reasonable: 86% of small business owners 

agree some regulation of business is necessary for a modern economy, and 93% of 

them agree their business can live with some 

regulation if it is fair, manageable and reasonable. 

Small businesses believe some regulations 

are needed to level the playing field with big 

business and that enforcement should be just 

as tough on large corporations as it is on 

small businesses: 78% of respondents said 

some regulations are important to protect 

small businesses from unfair competition 

and to level the playing field with big businesses. Additionally, 95% believe the enforcement of regulations should be at least 

as tough on large corporations as it is on 

small businesses. Another 76% of respondents believe regulations on the books should 

be enforced. 

Respondents feel strongly that specific regulations play an important role: 78% believe 

policies are needed to hold health insurance 

companies accountable so they don’t increase insurance rates by excessive amounts; 

84% support policies that ensure food safety 

for businesses and customers that buy or sell 

food products and 80% support disclosure and 

regulation of toxic materials. 

Small business owners support clean energy policies: 79% of small business owners 

support having clean air and water in their 

community in order to keep their family, 

employees and customers healthy, and 61% 

support standards that move the country towards energy efficiency and clean energy. 

Small business owners believe in streamlining the process for regulatory compliance 

and documentation: 73% of respondents believe we should allow for one-stop electronic 

filing of government paperwork. 

TAXES

Polling results that revealed small business owners’ attitudes toward taxes were released on Feb. 6. 

Small business owners overwhelmingly believe big corporations use loopholes to avoid 

taxes that small businesses have to pay: a 

sweeping 90% believe this to be true; 92% say 

big corporations’ use of such loopholes is a 

problem. 

Nine out of 10 small business owners say 

U.S. multinational corporations using accounting loopholes to shift their U.S. profits 

to offshore subsidiaries to avoid taxes is a 

problem: 91% of respondents agreed it is a 

problem, with 55% saying it is a very serious 

problem. 

Majority of small business owners say 

their business is harmed when big corporations use loopholes to avoid taxes: Threequarters of respondents agree that their 

small business is harmed when loopholes 

allow big corporations to avoid taxes. More 

than one-third say it harms their business a 

lot. 

Small business owners say big corporations 

are not paying their fair share of taxes: 67% 

believe big corporations pay less than their 

fair share of taxes. An even bigger majority, 

73%, says multinational corporations pay 

less than their fair share. 

Small business owners say households 

making more than $1 million a year pay less 

than their fair share in taxes: 58% of owners 

say households whose annual income exceeds 

$1 million pay less than their fair share. 

Small business owners support a higher tax 

rate for individuals earning more than $1 

million a year: 57% of respondents agree that 

individuals earning more than $1 million a 

year should pay a higher tax rate on the income over $1 million. Only one small business owner out of 500 polled reported their 

annual household income to be more than $1 

million. 

Four out of five small business owners disapprove of the ‘‘carried interest’’ loophole 

that gives hedge fund managers a big break 

on their taxes: 81% of small business owners 

favor hedge fund managers paying taxes at 

the ordinary income tax rate, with a top 

bracket rate currently set at 35%, rather 

than the 15% capital gains rate—with 61% 

strongly supporting this change. 

A majority of small business owners believe Congress should let tax cuts expire on 

taxable household income exceeding $250,000 

a year: 51% of respondents believe Congress 

should let tax cuts on taxable household income exceeding $250,000 a year expire (40% 

said they should be extended). 

ABOUT THE ORGANIZATIONS

American Sustainable Business Council 

The American Sustainable Business Council is a network of business organizations 

representing over 100,000 companies and 

200,000 business leaders. ASBC advocates for 

public policies that meet the realities of the 

21st century global economy including strategic investments in workforce and infrastructure; standards and safeguards that promote innovation, prevent abuse and protect 

critical resources; and a new sustainable economic model that fosters a growing, economically-secure middle class. 

www.asbcouncil.org 

Main Street Alliance 

The Main Street Alliance is a national network of small business coalitions. MSA creates opportunities for small business owners 

to speak for themselves to advance public 

policies that benefit business owners, their 

employees, and the communities they serve. 

Making health reform work for small businesses is a top priority of the MSA network 

and its state coalitions. 

www.Mainstreetalliance.org 

Small Business Majority 

Small Business Majority is a national nonpartisan small business advocacy organization, founded and run by small business owners, and focused on solving the biggest problems facing America’s 28 million small businesses. We conduct extensive opinion and 

economic research and work with small business owners, policy experts and elected officials nationwide to bring small business 

voices to the public policy table. 

www.smallbusinessinajority.org 

This survey says that eight out of 10 

think regulations have a role to play in 

leveling the playing field between 

small businesses and larger competitors that seek an unfair advantage. 

Even surveys by the U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce and the National Federation 

of Independent Businesses, who, themselves are vehemently against regulation, they find that small businesses 

rank economic uncertainty and poor 

sales, respectively, as the most important concerns, not regulation. 

There are a number of proposals that 

this House could pass to generate demand for small company services and 

empower them to hire. Tax credits for 

new employees, expanding payroll tax 

cuts, and extending tax cuts for working families all come to mind. 

Let’s reject this legislation and move 

on to a real small business jobs act. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I 

am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. CANTOR), 

the distinguished majority leader. 

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman 

from Texas. 

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of 

legislation before us that will cut red 

tape and spur small business job creation. Small businesses create the majority of new jobs in this country; but 

over the last 3 years, there’s been a 23 

percent decline in new business startups. 

The President says he wants to help 

grow small businesses; but, frankly, his 

actions have not matched his rhetoric. 

Recently, the President attacked hardearned success, telling small businessmen and -women and entrepreneurs 

that if you’ve got a business, you didn’t 

build it. Well, it’s pretty clear that the 

President doesn’t get it. 

Since the President took office, his 

administration has had under review 

more than 400 regulations that cost the 

economy $100 million; and small businesses are facing annual regulatory 

costs that add up to $10,000 per employee. 

If you’re a small business owner, this 

is just part of the maze of the regulatory red tape you’re facing today. 

And where do we get the information 

for this chart? From President 

Obama’s administration’s own Web 

sites at SBA and the IRS. 

The president of a trucking company 

in Ashland, Virginia, in my district, 

says that constant regulatory changes 

by the EPA have caused the prices for 

his operation to go up. These rising 

costs have, frankly, made it more difficult for him to plan for the future, 

difficult for him to operate in the 

present and, frankly, have just made it 

plain too hard. 

We are voting today on cuts to red 

tape so we can empower small business 

owners like the one in Ashland to start 

growing again. Our legislation freezes 

costly new regulations until national 

unemployment drops to 6 percent or 

lower. 

Further, we give small businesses the 

ability to intervene before government 

agencies agree to legal settlements 

that result in more onerous regulation. 

b 1700 

The bill also increases the transparency for Federal agencies that have 

been operating outside the purview of 

regulatory review, such as the Obama 

administration’s National Labor Relations Board. 

Mr. Chairman, we know that, just 

this year, thousands of pages of red 

tape have been published, imposing billions in new compliance costs on businesses. Under this bill, we will require 

all agencies to perform the thorough 

cost-benefit analyses of proposed regulations. In other words, agencies must 

finally ask the question of whether and 

how their proposed actions will affect 

job creation and our economy. Federal 

regulation must become smarter and 

less harmful to our economy. 

Mr. Chairman, we know small businesses are built because of the men and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
July 25, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5241 

women who take risks, work hard, and 

invest capital in new ideas. Because 

it’s just too hard for these small business owners to operate, we’ve brought 

this bill forward, and that is why I urge 

my colleagues to support the passage 

of this legislation. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 

myself such time as I may consume. 

I would like to just remark on the 

words of the distinguished speaker on 

the Republican side by saying that another Republican has a completely different point of view, who was the 

former chairman of the House Committee on Science, and was so for over 

5 years. He is Sherwood Boehlert, and 

many of us remember him fondly. 

He says that it would be ‘‘difficult to 

exaggerate the sweep and destructiveness of the House bill.’’ He is referring 

to H.R. 4078. 

The legislation might as well just directly 

order the agencies that were created to protect the public to close up shop. 

Then he goes on to say: 

There is no indication that this bill would 

aid job growth. Indeed, by blocking rules 

needed to make the economy run more 

smoothly, the bill could harm our economic 

prospects for years to come. 

So I present to you a point of view of 

the Republican leader of the House of 

Representatives, a distinguished Republican and former chairman of the 

Committee on Science in 2001 and 2006. 

I now yield such time as she may desire to the gentlelady from California 

(Ms. ESHOO). 

Ms. ESHOO. To the distinguished 

ranking member and my good friend, 

thank you for yielding time to me. 

Mr. Chairman, I am very troubled 

about this bill. Instead of considering 

legislation that would create jobs and 

stimulate economic growth, the House 

is going to take up and vote on a bill 

that does the exact opposite. In fact, it 

has the enormous potential of delaying 

the implementation of new spectrum 

and public safety law. 

Now, I don’t know if you vetted your 

own effort, so to speak, but it was not 

all that long ago—it was earlier this 

year—that Congress passed and the 

President signed into law landmark 

legislation that implements a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. 

The legislation also made more spectrum available for mobile broadband 

services. This was the last recommendation that the 9/11 Commission 

had made. 

Congress finally made good on that 

recommendation, which was to establish a nationwide interoperable public 

safety network. Why? Because on that 

fateful day in New York, when police 

and fire went into those Twin Towers, 

their communications systems did not 

allow them to communicate with each 

other, to talk to each other. We finally, 

on a bipartisan basis, resolved that. 

Also, at the time of the passage of 

that legislation, Mr. Chairman, we all 

praised it. We described the billions of 

dollars in new investment as well as 

the hundreds of thousands of jobs that 

would be created as a result of the legislation, calling it an economic game 

changer. 

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the bill that you 

dragged to the floor today, H.R. 4078, 

which is what we are considering, suggests that this legislation could delay 

this critical investment and the job 

creation that comes with it. 

My rhetorical question to the majority is: Do you even know what you’re 

doing? I don’t think the left hand 

knows what the right hand is doing. 

Now, I offered an amendment at the 

Rules Committee, which was not made 

in order, that would have exempted the 

legislation I’m referring to: that any 

agency rulemaking that creates jobs or 

protects public safety, including the 

provisions of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 that 

pay for the creation of a nationwide 

public safety broadband network 

through voluntary spectrum incentive 

auctions, be exempt. That was not 

made in order. 

So all I can do is come to the floor 

and use the voice that my constituents 

have entrusted to me to stand up for 

things that really make sense for our 

country, bipartisan legislation, which 

your legislation today really screws 

up—in plain English. With the auction 

of this prime spectrum expected to 

raise over $25 billion, the passage of 

this legislation, H.R. 4078, will not only 

delay access to this critical revenue, 

but on top of that, you’ve brought to 

the floor really bad policy. 

That’s why I urge my colleagues to 

vote ‘‘no’’ on the final passage of this 

legislation, because it messes up the 

good work that we were able to bring 

forward with, really, I think, a political advertising message. This is not 

serious legislation. What is serious 

about it is the damage that it will do 

to legislation that, on a bipartisan 

basis, we worked so hard on to make 

law. This essentially comes behind it 

as the wrecking crew. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I 

yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 

Nevada (Mr. AMODEI), who is a member 

of the Judiciary Committee. 

Mr. AMODEI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time. 

I find it interesting that we are sitting here having a discussion about 

regulations in this context. I believe 

that it is the regulations that are the 

by-product of this process that we engage in here. It’s called ‘‘legislation.’’ 

The regulatory process is not the 

fourth branch of government that has 

no accountability to anyone and that 

can basically do whatever the heck it 

darn well pleases. The agencies that we 

are talking about here today, none of 

which exist in the Constitution, were 

created by this Congress, which means, 

if we created you, we can darn well 

talk about the regulations that you 

provided. 

When I hear words like ‘‘ideology,’’ 

‘‘cynicism,’’ ‘‘really bad policy,’’ what 

is the danger in predictability, for instance, in the timing of the regulatory 

process? 

There is nothing in this legislation 

which changes the substance of agency 

discretion in how they go about their 

business. What we are talking about 

here is the process, the process by 

which you go to provide some predictability and stability to those people 

who are trying to talk about investing 

capital, hiring workers and things like 

that. 

I urge your support. I thank Mr. 

GRIFFIN and Mr. ROSS for their efforts 

in this area. 

Mr. CONYERS. I reserve the balance 

of my time. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I 

yield 11⁄2 minutes to the gentleman 

from New York (Mr. REED), who is a 

member of the Ways and Means Committee. 

Mr. REED. I thank the gentleman, 

my former chairman on Judiciary, for 

yielding the time to me. 

I rise today in support of H.R. 4078, 

Mr. Chairman, and I am standing behind 2-weeks’ worth of regulatory material produced in the Federal Register, 

which is the official record keeper of 

regulations here in Washington, D.C. 

b 1710 

This represents the issue that we are 

talking about, Mr. Chairman. We need 

to stop sending this regulatory burden 

to our job creators back in the districts, back on the frontline that are 

creating the jobs of today and tomorrow. 

I believe there is a clear distinction 

between the two philosophies that are 

on display this afternoon in this Chamber. The other side is standing up for 

regulation, standing up for Big Government. I’ve come here as a firm believer 

in the private sector and small business America. We will stand for them 

day in and day out. Mr. Chairman, this 

pile of material, this pile of regulations 

is not good for our job creators. We can 

do better. We must do better for our 

children and grandchildren. 

With that, I ask support for H.R. 4078 

and the corresponding long-term fix, 

the REINS Act, which will go a long 

way to taking care of this problem in 

perpetuity. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I 

yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 

New Jersey (Mr. GARRETT), who is the 

vice chairman of the Budget Committee. 

Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support 

of H.R. 4078, the Regulatory Freeze for 

Jobs Act. At a time when new regulation after new regulation is being proposed by the Obama administration, it 

is critical that we restore some semblance of order to the regulatory process and ensure that our Nation’s small 

businesses do not continue down in a 

sea of red tape. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5242 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 25, 2012 

I thank Congressman GRIFFIN, Chairman SMITH, Chairman ISSA, Leader 

CANTOR, and the Rules Committee for 

including the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act as part of title VI of 

this legislation. This legislation subjects the SEC to the President’s executive order. What that does is require 

enhanced cost-benefit analysis requirements, as well as require a review of 

existing regulations. 

Title VI will enhance the SEC existing cost-benefit analysis requirements 

by requiring the commission to first 

clearly identify a problem that would 

be addressed before issuing any new 

rules and to require that the cost-benefit analysis be performed by the SEC’s 

chief economist. 

While the SEC already has certain 

cost-benefit requirements relative to 

rulemaking, recent court decisions 

have simply vacated or remanded several of these rules and have specifically 

pointed out deficiencies in the Commission’s use of cost-benefit analysis. 

For example, recently the SEC Inspector General issued a report that expressed several concerns he had about 

the quality of the SEC’s cost-benefit 

analysis. It found absolutely none of 

the rulemaking it examined attempted 

to quantify either benefits or costs, 

other than information and collection 

costs. This bill now will ensure that 

the benefits of any rulemaking outweigh the costs, and that both new and 

existing regulations are accountable, 

consistent, written in plain language, 

and simply easy to understand. 

Title VI also will require the SEC to 

assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including 

the alternative of simply not regulating, and choose the approach that 

maximizes the benefits. 

Under the bill, the SEC shall also 

evaluate whether a proposed regulation 

is inconsistent, whether it is incompatible, or duplicates other Federal regulation, as well. Because some regulations have been politicized in the past, 

this bill will require that the examinations be done by the Commission’s 

chief economist. 

These are really just commonsense 

reforms and are appropriate, especially 

given the fact that the Commission 

continues to struggle with this issue. 

For instance, the D.C. Court of Appeals, which vacated the Commission’s 

proxy access rule, stated: ‘‘The commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously for having failed once again to 

adequately assess the economic effects 

of a new rule’’ and also ‘‘inconsistently 

and opportunistically framed costs and 

benefits of the rule.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, this bill also includes 

a new section adopted by the subcommittee to provide a clearer postimplementation assessment of all new 

regulations so that these post-implementation cost-benefit analyses, in addition to pre-implementation, will be 

done correctly. 

Finally, it’s a commonsense approach, and it’s a pragmatic approach 

to a rulemaking process. I support the 

underlying legislation. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, how 

much time is remaining? 

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman 

from Michigan has 51⁄2 minutes, and the 

gentleman from Texas has 5 minutes 

remaining. 

Mr. CONYERS. At this time, I yield 

as much time as he may consume to 

the distinguished gentleman from Atlanta, Georgia, Mr. HANK JOHNSON, a 

member of the Judiciary Committee. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 

4078, the so-called Red Tape Reduction 

and Small Business Job Creation Act. 

This mother of all anti-regulation 

bills is actually a repackaging of a noxious potpourri of previously introduced 

bills that would make it virtually impossible for the executive branch and 

its agencies to protect the American 

public. This bill would block the 

issuance of regulations regardless of 

how vital they are to safeguarding the 

public’s health. They want to eliminate 

regulations that keep our workers safe 

and which would rein in the excesses of 

Wall Street. 

Why? So that they can please their 

crony capitalist brothers, the Koch 

brothers, and also their crony capitalist friends in the U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce. They want to keep them 

happy. 

Instead of creating jobs, the Tea 

Party Republicans are assaulting the 

very regulations that ensure that we 

have clean air to breathe and clean 

water to drink; regulations that protect our children from unsafe products 

like toys, like clothing and bedding, 

baby food, regulations that protect 

seniors from adulterated medicines and 

unsafe substances that they use. 

They essentially want to create so 

many barriers and obstacles to the promulgation of regulations that it’s virtually impossible to do so. They want 

to keep these Federal agencies from 

doing their job, which is to protect the 

health, safety, and well-being of this 

country. 

This isn’t red tape reduction, folks. 

This is a philosophy of putting profits 

over people. The House is in session for 

6 more days prior to our August break. 

After that, we have maybe about 10 

legislative days left before the end of 

the year. What have we accomplished 

in this Congress? Bills like this. And 

we’ve voted to rescind and repeal 

ObamaCare over and over again. We’re 

now up to number 34 votes on that. 

What do we have pending here? We 

have the Bush tax cuts, which we all 

agree that we should keep in place for 

the middle class; but because we don’t 

agree to extend them for the Koch 

brothers and the other crony capitalists that this party represents, they’re 

not willing to get that done. They 

don’t want to do the payroll tax cuts, 

the tax extenders, the AMT patch, unemployment benefits, the doc fix, and 

sequestration. All of this remains to be 

wrapped up within the next 10 days or 

so, plus 6, the next 2 weeks of legislative activity. 

So to think that this legislation 

would be effective in bringing reasonable regulations through this Congress, 

is absurd. 

b 1720 

We should be creating jobs legislatively. We should be helping veterans 

adjust to civilian life. We should be 

taking measures to impact the ongoing 

taking of homes of individuals in foreclosure. There is so much that we 

should be doing instead of appeasing 

our crony capitalist friends. So I urge 

my colleagues to oppose this fundamentally flawed bill. 

Mr. SMITH Texas. Mr. Chairman, I 

yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 

Georgia (Mr. WOODALL), who is a member of the Rules Committee. 

Mr. WOODALL. I thank the chairman for yielding. 

I am pleased to come to the floor 

after my colleague from Georgia. He 

and I share a common border and we 

share a lot of common ground, but I 

have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, he 

could not be more wrong today. Because this bill does one thing, and it 

does one thing only, and that is to say 

that whatever it is that the people’s 

House decides, whatever it is that the 

people’s Congress decides and sends to 

the executive branch for implementation, that it come right back here at 

the end, if it’s that big. If it’s over $100 

million, if it’s that big, it come right 

back here so that we confirm that they 

got it right. 

Now, as I listened to my friend’s 

words, Mr. Chairman, I might believe 

this is something a Republican Congress was doing to a Democratic administration. But I daresay, what is so 

important about the work the chairman is doing is this isn’t about a Republican House and a Democratic administration. This is about good oversight for a Republican House and a Republican administration, and this is 

about good oversight for a Democratic 

House and a Democratic administration. 

I will say to my friend, Mr. Chairman, he is absolutely right about all 

the work we have left to get done this 

year, but the oversight that we do, the 

oversight is so important. And I would 

say, Mr. Chairman, I believe my friends 

on the Democratic side of the aisle fell 

short in that respect over a Democratic 

administration, and I am certain that 

my friends on the Republican side of 

the aisle fell short on that during a Republican administration. 

The chairman is giving us an opportunity to change that, and change that 

in statute, and I hope that my friend 

from Georgia is going to join me in 

that effort. 

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I thank 

the gentleman. 

I really enjoy the fact that we share 

a common border, and we have worked 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
July 25, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5243 

together to try to traverse that border 

and come to a consensus on issues that 

affect the people of our districts. And I 

think that’s exactly what this Congress should be about but, unfortunately, due to an obstructionist strategy, we’ve not been successful. 

The Acting CHAIR. The time of the 

gentleman from Georgia has expired. 

The gentleman from Michigan has 45 

seconds remaining. 

Mr. CONYERS. I yield the 45 seconds 

to the gentleman from Georgia. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I thank 

the gentleman. 

Mr. Chairman, there is absolutely no 

way, with the many regulations that 

need to be promulgated and put into effect, that we would be able to do that 

here in Congress instead of letting the 

stakeholders, the business community, 

and the regulatory agencies work 

things out. There’s no way that we’re 

going to be able to handle that in Congress. 

Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentleman 

yield? 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I yield to 

the gentleman from Georgia. 

Mr. WOODALL. I say to my friend 

that the children we share across our 

common border, there is not one regulation that this Congress would send to 

the executive branch that you and I 

would not come together and pass for 

the benefit of those children. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, what about Wall Street 

regulations? We would not be able to 

come to an agreement on that. 

The Acting CHAIR. All time controlled by the gentleman from Michigan has expired. 

The gentleman from Texas has 3 minutes remaining. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I 

yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 

Arizona (Mr. FLAKE), who is a member 

of the Appropriations Committee. 

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman 

for yielding. 

I rise in support of this act. This legislation would provide important regulatory reforms, and it couldn’t come at 

a better time for the economy. In particular, I am pleased to support my colleague from Arizona, Congressman 

QUAYLE’s Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act that is included in this legislation. 

In the West, we have seen the EPA 

adopt what appears to be a contemplated strategy with respect to the 

implementation of the Clean Air Act 

regional haze requirements that includes ignoring submitted State plans 

addressing air quality issues, inviting 

lawsuits from nongovernmental organizations, and then agreeing to consent 

decrees that result in Federal intervention. 

While this ‘‘sue and settle’’ strategy 

raises a host of issues, in this instance, 

it tramples on States’ prerogatives, 

and it flies in the face of Congress’ explicit intent to let the States lead 

when it comes to air quality decisions. 

In Arizona, for example, EPA has 

previously flatly ignored the State’s 

plan for dealing with regional haze. 

They have instead agreed to a consent 

decree without even consulting ADEQ, 

the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, that would result in a 

federally driven and needlessly costly 

outcome that will not be beneficial to 

Arizona’s residents. While Arizona has 

sued to be allowed to intervene and is 

appealing the consent decree, it is likely this scenario would have been more 

beneficial to Arizonans had this legislation been in place. 

I urge my colleagues to support this 

legislation and, in doing so, support 

Congress’ intent that the States lead 

when it comes to air quality planning. 

Mr. SMITH Texas. Mr. Chairman, I 

yield myself the balance of my time. 

Mr. Chairman, job creation is the key 

to economic recovery. But overregulation kills jobs and burdens small businesses, which are America’s main job 

generators. 

The Red Tape Reduction and Small 

Business Job Creation Act offers many 

commonsense, bipartisan solutions to 

the problem of overregulation. Like 

the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, the Regulatory Accountability Act, and the REINS Act, the 

bill before us today offers more commonsense, bipartisan solutions to protect small businesses from even more 

wasteful job-killing regulations and 

red tape. 

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues 

to support this legislation. I look forward to its passage and yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chair, H.R. 4078 would 

help to rein in the nontransparent and undemocratic activities of this Administration. 

There is one agency that personifies runaway 

regulations: the EPA. 

I’d like to highlight a backdoor power grab 

being pursued by EPA that demonstrates the 

need for this bill. As a member of the Science 

Committee, I’m concerned that this Agency is 

trying to expand its power under the guise of 

‘‘sustainability.’’ Without any legal authority or 

input from Congress, EPA has committed to 

‘‘incorporate sustainability principles into [their] 

policies, regulations, and actions,’’ has signed 

MOUs with DOD and the Army on sustainability, and has spent untold taxpayer dollars 

on UN conferences in Brazil and multiple National Academy of Sciences reports on this 

topic. 

What is sustainability? That’s a good question, and apparently it means whatever EPA 

wants it to mean. For example, one EPA 

website on this topic lists 16 different definitions of ‘‘sustainability.’’ Based on the track 

record of this Agency and this Administration, 

I fear that this new policy is designed to expand federal power to enact more billion dollar 

regulations without the consent of Congress. 

This bill will help control arbitrary and cumbersome federal regulations on job creators in 

my district in south Mississippi. 

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4078, which would prohibit 

agencies from issuing significant rules until the 

unemployment rate falls below 6%. 

Similar to many of my colleagues on both 

sides of the aisle, I support a comprehensive 

review of federal regulations to make them 

more effective and efficient. I am, however, 

strongly opposed to any measure which will 

prevent the government from exercising its 

rule making power and in turn jeopardize the 

health and safety of the American people. 

H.R. 4078 is based on the falsehood that 

regulations kill jobs. The Oversight Committee 

has held 28 hearings this Congress, touting 

this absurd theory in spite of an abundance of 

evidence to the contrary. Regulations have 

been found to have little overall impact on job 

creation. In many cases, regulations have had 

a positive impact on job growth. 

To continue to tie regulations to job growth 

is arbitrary and misleading to the American 

people. This bill asks the public to choose between saving their lives through the enactment 

of regulations that will protect their health and 

safety—and saving a job which may or may 

not be created because of the regulation. 

In other words, people are being asked to 

choose a job over their very lives. It is wrong 

to ask anyone to do this. It is worse than 

wrong—in fact, it is criminal—to ask people to 

make this choice when my colleagues on the 

other side of the aisle know that the probability 

of losing a job because of regulation is just an 

illusion. 

H.R. 4078 puts the interests of business before the interests of people. The Chairman of 

this Committee sent hundreds of letters to 

groups representing industry, asking them 

which regulations they would like to see repealed. Many of the corporations that submitted responses to the Committee have had 

skyrocketing profits over the past several 

years, and they are looking to this Congress 

to put even more profits into their pockets by 

passage of this bill. 

These are the same companies that are cutting jobs and sending American jobs overseas—not because of any regulation, but simply because they want cheaper labor to increase their profit margin. The presence or absence of a regulation will not stop them from 

outsourcing American jobs. 

Mr. Speaker, I refuse to take part in any 

measure that places profits before people. I 

refuse to sanction any legislation that requires 

the government to consult with business interests before a rule reaches the public for debate. Industry has shown that it will always 

choose a pathway to higher profit regardless 

of the impact of a measure on the health and 

well-being of people. 

It is not difficult to imagine the destruction 

H.R. 4078 will bring on important safeguards 

to the public health and safety if it is passed. 

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing 

any curtailment of the government’s ability to 

regulate the health and safety of the American 

People by voting no on H.R. 4078. 

The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired. 

Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be 

considered for amendment under the 5- 

minute rule. 

In lieu of the amendments in the nature of a substitute recommended by 

the Committees on the Judiciary and 

Oversight and Government Reform, 

printed in the bill, an amendment in 

the nature of a substitute consisting of 

the text of Rules Committee Print 112– 

28, modified by the amendment printed 

in part A of House Report 112–616, is 

adopted and the bill, as amended, shall 

be considered as the original bill for 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5244 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 25, 2012 

the purpose of further amendment 

under the 5-minute rule and shall be 

considered as read. 

The text of the bill, as amended, is as 

follows: 

H.R. 4078 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act’’. 

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

The table of contents for this Act is as follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title. 

Sec. 2. Table of contents. 

TITLE I—REGULATORY FREEZE FOR JOBS 

Sec. 101. Short title. 

Sec. 102. Moratorium on significant regulatory 

actions. 

Sec. 103. Waivers and exceptions. 

Sec. 104. Judicial review. 

Sec. 105. Definitions. 

TITLE II—MIDNIGHT RULE RELIEF 

Sec. 201. Short title. 

Sec. 202. Moratorium on midnight rules. 

Sec. 203. Special rule on statutory, regulatory, 

and judicial deadlines. 

Sec. 204. Exception. 

Sec. 205. Definitions. 

TITLE III—REGULATORY DECREES AND 

SETTLEMENTS 

Sec. 301. Short title. 

Sec. 302. Consent decree and settlement reform. 

Sec. 303. Motions to modify consent decrees. 

Sec. 304. Effective date. 

TITLE IV—UNFUNDED MANDATES 

INFORMATION AND TRANSPARENCY 

Sec. 401. Short title. 

Sec. 402. Purpose. 

Sec. 403. Providing for Congressional Budget 

Office studies on policies involving changes in conditions of grant 

aid. 

Sec. 404. Clarifying the definition of direct costs 

to reflect Congressional Budget 

Office practice. 

Sec. 405. Expanding the scope of reporting requirements to include regulations 

imposed by independent regulatory agencies. 

Sec. 406. Amendments to replace Office of Management and Budget with Office 

of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs. 

Sec. 407. Applying substantive point of order to 

private sector mandates. 

Sec. 408. Regulatory process and principles. 

Sec. 409. Expanding the scope of statements to 

accompany significant regulatory 

actions. 

Sec. 410. Enhanced stakeholder consultation. 

Sec. 411. New authorities and responsibilities 

for Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs. 

Sec. 412. Retrospective analysis of existing Federal regulations. 

Sec. 413. Expansion of judicial review. 

TITLE V—IMPROVED COORDINATION OF 

AGENCY ACTIONS ON ENVIRONMENTAL 

DOCUMENTS 

Sec. 501. Short title. 

Sec. 502. Coordination of agency administrative 

operations for efficient decisionmaking. 

TITLE VI—SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY 

Sec. 601. Short title. 

Sec. 602. Consideration by the Securities and 

Exchange Commission of the costs 

and benefits of its regulations and 

certain other agency actions. 

Sec. 603. Sense of Congress Realting to Other 

Regulatory Entities. 

TITLE VII—CONSIDERATION BY COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION OF CERTAIN COSTS AND BENEFITS 

Sec. 701. Consideration by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission of the 

costs and benefits of its regulations and orders. 

TITLE I—REGULATORY FREEZE FOR JOBS 

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE. 

This title may be cited as the ‘‘Regulatory 

Freeze for Jobs Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 102. MORATORIUM ON SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY ACTIONS. 

(a) MORATORIUM.—An agency may not take 

any significant regulatory action during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of 

this Act and ending on the date that the Secretary of Labor submits the report under subsection (b). 

(b) DETERMINATION.—The Secretary of Labor 

shall submit a report to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget when the Secretary determines that the Bureau of Labor Statistics average of monthly employment rates for 

any quarter beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act is equal to or less than 6.0 

percent. 

SEC. 103. WAIVERS AND EXCEPTIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other 

provision of this title, an agency may take a significant regulatory action only in accordance 

with subsection (b), (c), or (d) during the period 

described in section 102(a). 

(b) PRESIDENTIAL WAIVER.—An agency may 

take a significant regulatory action if the President determines by Executive Order that the significant regulatory action is— 

(1) necessary because of an imminent threat to 

health or safety or other emergency; 

(2) necessary for the enforcement of criminal 

or civil rights laws; 

(3) necessary for the national security of the 

United States; or 

(4) issued pursuant to any statute implementing an international trade agreement. 

(c) DEREGULATORY EXCEPTION.—An agency 

may take a significant regulatory action if the 

Administrator of the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management 

and Budget certifies in writing that the significant regulatory action is limited to repealing an 

existing rule. 

(d) CONGRESSIONAL WAIVERS.— 

(1) SUBMISSION.—For any significant regulatory action not eligible for a Presidential 

waiver pursuant to subsection (b), the President 

may submit a written request to Congress for a 

waiver of the application of section 102 for such 

action. 

(2) CONTENTS.—A submission by the President 

under this subsection shall— 

(A) identify the significant regulatory action 

and the scope of the requested waiver; 

(B) describe all the reasons the significant 

regulatory action is necessary to protect the 

public health, safety, or welfare; and 

(C) include an explanation of why the significant regulatory action is ineligible for a Presidential waiver under subsection (b). 

(3) CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.—Congress shall 

give expeditious consideration and take appropriate legislative action with respect to any submission by the President under this subsection. 

SEC. 104. JUDICIAL REVIEW. 

(a) REVIEW.—Any party adversely affected or 

aggrieved by any rule or guidance resulting 

from a regulatory action taken in violation of 

this title is entitled to judicial review in accordance with chapter 7 of title 5, United States 

Code. Any determination by either the President 

or the Secretary of Labor under this title shall 

be subject to judicial review under such chapter. 

(b) JURISDICTION.—Each court having jurisdiction to review any rule or guidance resulting 

from a significant regulatory action for compliance with any other provision of law shall have 

jurisdiction to review all claims under this title. 

(c) RELIEF.—In granting any relief in any 

civil action under this section, the court shall 

order the agency to take corrective action consistent with this title and chapter 7 of title 5, 

United States Code, including remanding the 

rule or guidance resulting from the significant 

regulatory action to the agency and enjoining 

the application or enforcement of that rule or 

guidance, unless the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that application or enforcement is required to protect against an imminent 

and serious threat to the national security of 

the United States. 

(d) REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR SMALL

BUSINESSES.—The court shall award reasonable 

attorney’s fees and costs to a substantially prevailing small business in any civil action arising 

under this title. A small business may qualify as 

substantially prevailing even without obtaining 

a final judgment in its favor if the agency that 

took the significant regulatory action changes 

its position after the civil action is filed. 

(e) LIMITATION ON COMMENCING CIVIL ACTION.—A party may seek and obtain judicial review during the 1-year period beginning on the 

date of the challenged agency action or within 

90 days after an enforcement action or notice 

thereof, except that where another provision of 

law requires that a civil action be commenced 

before the expiration of that 1-year period, such 

lesser period shall apply. 

(f) SMALL BUSINESS DEFINED.—In this section, 

the term ‘‘small business’’ means any business, 

including an unincorporated business or a sole 

proprietorship, that employs not more than 500 

employees or that has a net worth of less than 

$7,000,000 on the date a civil action arising 

under this title is filed. 

SEC. 105. DEFINITIONS. 

In this title: 

(1) AGENCY.—The term ‘‘agency’’ has the 

meaning given that term under section 551 of 

title 5, United States Code, except that such 

term does not include— 

(A) the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; 

(B) the Federal Open Market Committee; or 

(C) the United States Postal Service. 

(2) REGULATORY ACTION.—The term ‘‘regulatory action’’ means any substantive action by 

an agency that promulgates or is expected to 

lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including a notice of inquiry, an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, and a notice of proposed rulemaking. 

(3) RULE.—The term ‘‘rule’’ has the meaning 

given that term under section 551 of title 5, 

United States Code. 

(4) SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY ACTION.—The 

term ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ means any 

regulatory action that is likely to result in a 

rule or guidance that the Administrator of the 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

the Office of Management and Budget finds is 

likely to have an annual cost to the economy of 

$100,000,000 or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, small entities, 

or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. 

(5) SMALL ENTITY.—The term ‘‘small entity’’ 

has the meaning given that term under section 

601(6) of title 5, United States Code. 

TITLE II—MIDNIGHT RULE RELIEF 

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE. 

This title may be cited as the ‘‘Midnight Rule 

Relief Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 202. MORATORIUM ON MIDNIGHT RULES. 

Except as provided under sections 203 and 204, 

during the moratorium period, an agency may 

not propose or finalize any midnight rule that 

the Administrator of the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget finds is likely to result in an 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
July 25, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5245 

annual cost to the economy of $100,000,000 or 

more or adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, public 

health or safety, small entities, or State, local, 

or tribal governments or communities. 

SEC. 203. SPECIAL RULE ON STATUTORY, REGULATORY, AND JUDICIAL DEADLINES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 202 shall not apply 

with respect to any deadline— 

(1) for, relating to, or involving any midnight 

rule; 

(2) that was established before the beginning 

of the moratorium period; and 

(3) that is required to be taken during the 

moratorium period. 

(b) PUBLICATION OF DEADLINES.—Not later 

than 30 days after the beginning of a moratorium period, the Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget shall identify 

and publish in the Federal Register a list of 

deadlines covered by subsection (a). 

SEC. 204. EXCEPTION. 

(a) EMERGENCY EXCEPTION.—Section 202 shall 

not apply to a midnight rule if the President determines that the midnight rule is— 

(1) necessary because of an imminent threat to 

health or safety or other emergency; 

(2) necessary for the enforcement of criminal 

or civil rights laws; 

(3) necessary for the national security of the 

United States; or 

(4) issued pursuant to any statute implementing an international trade agreement. 

(b) DEREGULATORY EXCEPTION.—Section 202 

shall not apply to a midnight rule that the Administrator of the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget certifies in writing is limited to 

repealing an existing rule. 

(c) NOTICE OF EXCEPTIONS.—Not later than 30 

days after a determination under subsection (a) 

or a certification is made under subsection (b), 

the head of the relevant agency shall publish in 

the Federal Register any midnight rule excluded 

from the moratorium period due to an exception 

under this section. 

SEC. 205. DEFINITIONS. 

In this title: 

(1) AGENCY.—The term ‘‘agency’’ has the 

meaning given that term under section 551 of 

title 5, United States Code, except that such 

term does not include— 

(A) the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; 

(B) the Federal Open Market Committee; or 

(C) the United States Postal Service. 

(2) DEADLINE.—The term ‘‘deadline’’ means 

any date certain for fulfilling any obligation or 

exercising any authority established by or under 

any Federal statute or rule, or by or under any 

court order implementing any Federal statute, 

regulation, or rule. 

(3) MORATORIUM PERIOD.—The term ‘‘moratorium period’’ means the day after the day referred to in section 1 of title 3, United States 

Code, through January 20 of the following year, 

in which a President is not serving a consecutive term. 

(4) MIDNIGHT RULE.—The term ‘‘midnight 

rule’’ means an agency statement of general applicability and future effect, issued during the 

moratorium period, that is intended to have the 

force and effect of law and is designed— 

(A) to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or 

policy; or 

(B) to describe the procedure or practice requirements of an agency. 

(5) RULE.—The term ‘‘rule’’ has the meaning 

given that term under section 551 of title 5, 

United States Code. 

(6) SMALL ENTITY.—The term ‘‘small entity’’ 

has the meaning given that term under section 

601(6) of title 5, United States Code. 

TITLE III—REGULATORY DECREES AND 

SETTLEMENTS 

SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE. 

This title may be cited as the ‘‘Sunshine for 

Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 

2012’’. 

SEC. 302. CONSENT DECREE AND SETTLEMENT 

REFORM. 

(a) APPLICATION.—The provisions of this section apply in the case of— 

(1) a consent decree or settlement agreement 

in an action to compel agency action alleged to 

be unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed that pertains to a regulatory action that 

affects the rights of private parties other than 

the plaintiff or the rights of State, local or Tribal government entities— 

(A) brought under chapter 7 of title 5, United 

States Code; or 

(B) brought under any other statute authorizing such an action; and 

(2) any other consent decree or settlement 

agreement that requires agency action that pertains to a regulatory action that affects the 

rights of private parties other than the plaintiff 

or the rights of State, local or Tribal government 

entities. 

(b) IN GENERAL.—In the case of an action to 

be resolved by a consent decree or a settlement 

agreement described in paragraph (1), the following shall apply: 

(1) The complaint in the action, the consent 

decree or settlement agreement, the statutory 

basis for the consent decree or settlement agreement and its terms, and any award of attorneys’ 

fees or costs shall be published, including electronically, in a readily accessible manner by the 

defendant agency. 

(2) Until the conclusion of an opportunity for 

affected parties to intervene in the action, a 

party may not file with the court a motion for 

a consent decree or to dismiss the case pursuant 

to a settlement agreement. 

(3) In considering a motion to intervene by 

any party that would be affected by the agency 

action in dispute, the court shall presume, subject to rebuttal, that the interests of that party 

would not be represented adequately by the current parties to the action. In considering a motion to intervene filed by a State, local or Tribal 

government entity, the court shall take due account of whether the movant— 

(A) administers jointly with the defendant 

agency the statutory provisions that give rise to 

the regulatory duty alleged in the complaint; or 

(B) administers State, local or Tribal regulatory authority that would be preempted by the 

defendant agency’s discharge of the regulatory 

duty alleged in the complaint. 

(4) If the court grants a motion to intervene in 

the action, the court shall include the plaintiff, 

the defendant agency, and the intervenors in 

settlement discussions. Settlement efforts conducted shall be pursuant to a court’s mediation 

or alternative dispute resolution program, or by 

a district judge, magistrate judge, or special 

master, as determined by the assigned judge. 

(5) The defendant agency shall publish in the 

Federal Register and by electronic means any 

proposed consent decree or settlement agreement 

for no fewer than 60 days of public comment before filing it with the court, including a statement of the statutory basis for the proposed consent decree or settlement agreement and its 

terms, allowing comment on any issue related to 

the matters alleged in the complaint or addressed or affected by the consent decree or settlement agreement. 

(6) The defendant agency shall— 

(A) respond to public comments received under 

paragraph (5); and 

(B) when moving that the court enter the consent decree or for dismissal pursuant to the settlement agreement— 

(i) inform the court of the statutory basis for 

the proposed consent decree or settlement agreement and its terms; 

(ii) submit to the court a summary of the public comments and agency responses; 

(iii) certify the index to the administrative 

record of the notice and comment proceeding to 

the court; and 

(iv) make that record fully accessible to the 

court. 

(7) The court shall include in the judicial 

record the full administrative record, the index 

to which was certified by the agency under 

paragraph (6). 

(8) If the consent decree or settlement agreement requires an agency action by a date certain, the agency shall, when moving for entry of 

the consent decree or dismissal based on the settlement agreement— 

(A) inform the court of any uncompleted mandatory duties to take regulatory action that the 

decree or agreement does not address; 

(B) how the decree or agreement, if approved, 

would affect the discharge of those duties; and 

(C) why the decree’s or agreement’s effects on 

the order in which the agency discharges its 

mandatory duties is in the public interest. 

(9) The court shall presume, subject to rebuttal, that it is proper to allow amicus participation by any party who filed public comments on 

the consent decree or settlement agreement during the court’s consideration of a motion to 

enter the decree or dismiss the case on the basis 

of the agreement. 

(10) The court shall ensure that the proposed 

consent decree or settlement agreement allows 

sufficient time and procedure for the agency to 

comply with chapter 5 of title 5, United States 

Code, and other applicable statutes that govern 

rule making and, unless contrary to the public 

interest, the provisions of any executive orders 

that govern rule making. 

(11) The defendant agency may, at its discretion, hold a public hearing pursuant to notice in 

the Federal Register and by electronic means, 

on whether to enter into the consent decree or 

settlement agreement. If such a hearing is held, 

then, in accordance with paragraph (6), the 

agency shall submit to the court a summary of 

the proceedings and the certified index to the 

hearing record, full access to the hearing record 

shall be given to the court, and the full hearing 

record shall be included in the judicial record. 

(12) The Attorney General, in cases litigated 

by the Department of Justice, or the head of the 

defendant Federal agency, in cases litigated 

independently by that agency, shall certify to 

the court his or her approval of any proposed 

consent decree or settlement agreement that contains any of the following terms— 

(A) in the case of a consent decree, terms 

that— 

(i) convert into mandatory duties the otherwise discretionary authorities of an agency to 

propose, promulgate, revise or amend regulations; 

(ii) commit the agency to expend funds that 

Congress has not appropriated and that have 

not been budgeted for the action in question, or 

commit an agency to seek a particular appropriation or budget authorization; 

(iii) divest the agency of discretion committed 

to it by Congress or the Constitution, whether 

such discretionary power was granted to respond to changing circumstances, to make policy or managerial choices, or to protect the 

rights of third parties; or 

(iv) otherwise afford relief that the court 

could not enter on its own authority upon a 

final judgment in the litigation; or 

(B) in the case of a settlement agreement, 

terms that— 

(i) interfere with the agency’s authority to revise, amend, or issue rules through the procedures set forth in chapter 5 of title 5, United 

States Code, or any other statute or executive 

order prescribing rule making procedures for 

rule makings that are the subject of the settlement agreement; 

(ii) commit the agency to expend funds that 

Congress has not appropriated and that have 

not been budgeted for the action in question; or 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5246 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 25, 2012 

(iii) provide a remedy for the agency’s failure 

to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement other than the revival of the action resolved by the settlement agreement, if the agreement commits the agency to exercise its discretion in a particular way and such discretionary 

power was committed to the agency by Congress 

or the Constitution to respond to changing circumstances, to make policy or managerial 

choices, or to protect the rights of third parties. 

(c) ANNUAL REPORTS.—Each agency shall submit an annual report to Congress on the number, identity, and content of complaints, consent 

decrees, and settlement agreements described in 

paragraph (1) for that year, the statutory basis 

for each consent decree or settlement agreement 

and its terms, and any awards of attorneys fees 

or costs in actions resolved by such decrees or 

agreements. 

SEC. 303. MOTIONS TO MODIFY CONSENT DECREES. 

When a defendant agency moves the court to 

modify a previously entered consent decree described under section 302 and the basis of the 

motion is that the terms of the decree are no 

longer fully in the public interest due to the 

agency’s obligations to fulfill other duties or due 

to changed facts and circumstances, the court 

shall review the motion and the consent decree 

de novo. 

SEC. 304. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

The provisions of this title apply to any covered consent decree or settlement agreement proposed to a court after the date of enactment of 

this title. 

TITLE IV—UNFUNDED MANDATES 

INFORMATION AND TRANSPARENCY 

SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE. 

This title may be cited as the ‘‘Unfunded 

Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 

2012’’. 

SEC. 402. PURPOSE. 

The purpose of this title is— 

(1) to improve the quality of the deliberations 

of Congress with respect to proposed Federal 

mandates by— 

(A) providing Congress and the public with 

more complete information about the effects of 

such mandates; and 

(B) ensuring that Congress acts on such mandates only after focused deliberation on their effects; and 

(2) to enhance the ability of Congress and the 

public to identify Federal mandates that may 

impose undue harm on consumers, workers, employers, small businesses, and State, local, and 

tribal governments. 

SEC. 403. PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL 

BUDGET OFFICE STUDIES ON POLICIES INVOLVING CHANGES IN CONDITIONS OF GRANT AID. 

Section 202(g) of the Congressional Budget Act 

of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 602(g)) is amended by adding at 

the end the following new paragraph: 

‘‘(3) ADDITIONAL STUDIES.—At the request of 

any Chairman or ranking member of the minority of a Committee of the Senate or the House of 

Representatives, the Director shall conduct an 

assessment comparing the authorized level of 

funding in a bill or resolution to the prospective 

costs of carrying out any changes to a condition 

of Federal assistance being imposed on State, 

local, or tribal governments participating in the 

Federal assistance program concerned or, in the 

case of a bill or joint resolution that authorizes 

such sums as are necessary, an assessment of an 

estimated level of funding compared to such 

costs.’’. 

SEC. 404. CLARIFYING THE DEFINITION OF DIRECT COSTS TO REFLECT CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PRACTICE. 

Section 421(3) of the Congressional Budget Act 

of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658(3)(A)(i)) is amended— 

(1) in subparagraph (A)(i), by inserting ‘‘incur 

or’’ before ‘‘be required’’; and 

(2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting after ‘‘to 

spend’’ the following: ‘‘or could forgo in profits, 

including costs passed on to consumers or other 

entities taking into account, to the extent practicable, behavioral changes,’’. 

SEC. 405. EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF REPORTING 

REQUIREMENTS TO INCLUDE REGULATIONS IMPOSED BY INDEPENDENT 

REGULATORY AGENCIES. 

Paragraph (1) of section 421 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658) is 

amended by striking ‘‘, but does not include 

independent regulatory agencies’’ and inserting 

‘‘, except it does not include the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open Market Committee’’. 

SEC. 406. AMENDMENTS TO REPLACE OFFICE OF 

MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET WITH 

OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS. 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Public Law 104–4; 2 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.) is 

amended— 

(1) in section 103(c) (2 U.S.C. 1511(c))— 

(A) in the subsection heading, by striking 

‘‘OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET’’ and inserting ‘‘OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘Director of the Office of Management and Budget’’ and inserting ‘‘Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs’’; 

(2) in section 205(c) (2 U.S.C. 1535(c))— 

(A) in the subsection heading, by striking 

‘‘OMB’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘Director of the Office of Management and Budget’’ and inserting ‘‘Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs’’; and 

(3) in section 206 (2 U.S.C. 1536), by striking 

‘‘Director of the Office of Management and 

Budget’’ and inserting ‘‘Administrator of the 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs’’. 

SEC. 407. APPLYING SUBSTANTIVE POINT OF 

ORDER TO PRIVATE SECTOR MANDATES. 

Section 425(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget 

Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658d(a)(2)) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandates’’ and inserting ‘‘Federal mandates’’; 

and 

(2) by inserting ‘‘or 424(b)(1)’’ after ‘‘section 

424(a)(1)’’. 

SEC. 408. REGULATORY PROCESS AND PRINCIPLES. 

Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531) is amended to read as 

follows: 

‘‘SEC. 201. REGULATORY PROCESS AND PRINCIPLES. 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Each agency shall, unless 

otherwise expressly prohibited by law, assess the 

effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and tribal governments and the private 

sector (other than to the extent that such regulatory actions incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law) in accordance with the 

following principles: 

‘‘(1) Each agency shall identify the problem 

that it intends to address (including, if applicable, the failures of private markets or public institutions that warrant new agency action) as 

well as assess the significance of that problem. 

‘‘(2) Each agency shall examine whether existing regulations (or other law) have created, or 

contributed to, the problem that a new regulation is intended to correct and whether those 

regulations (or other law) should be modified to 

achieve the intended goal of regulation more effectively. 

‘‘(3) Each agency shall identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees 

or marketable permits, or providing information 

upon which choices can be made by the public. 

‘‘(4) If an agency determines that a regulation 

is the best available method of achieving the 

regulatory objective, it shall design its regulations in the most cost-effective manner to 

achieve the regulatory objective. In doing so, 

each agency shall consider incentives for innovation, consistency, predictability, the costs of 

enforcement and compliance (to the government, 

regulated entities, and the public), flexibility, 

distributive impacts, and equity. 

‘‘(5) Each agency shall assess both the costs 

and the benefits of the intended regulation and, 

recognizing that some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation, unless expressly prohibited by law, only 

upon a reasoned determination that the benefits 

of the intended regulation justify its costs. 

‘‘(6) Each agency shall base its decisions on 

the best reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, economic, and other information concerning the need for, and consequences of, the 

intended regulation. 

‘‘(7) Each agency shall identify and assess alternative forms of regulation and shall, to the 

extent feasible, specify performance objectives, 

rather than specifying the behavior or manner 

of compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt. 

‘‘(8) Each agency shall avoid regulations that 

are inconsistent, incompatible, or duplicative 

with its other regulations or those of other Federal agencies. 

‘‘(9) Each agency shall tailor its regulations to 

minimize the costs of the cumulative impact of 

regulations. 

‘‘(10) Each agency shall draft its regulations 

to be simple and easy to understand, with the 

goal of minimizing the potential for uncertainty 

and litigation arising from such uncertainty. 

‘‘(b) REGULATORY ACTION DEFINED.—In this 

section, the term ‘regulatory action’ means any 

substantive action by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates 

or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a 

final rule or regulation, including advance notices of proposed rulemaking and notices of proposed rulemaking.’’. 

SEC. 409. EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF STATEMENTS TO ACCOMPANY SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY ACTIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) of section 202 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(2 U.S.C. 1532) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Unless otherwise expressly 

prohibited by law, before promulgating any general notice of proposed rulemaking or any final 

rule, or within six months after promulgating 

any final rule that was not preceded by a general notice of proposed rulemaking, if the proposed rulemaking or final rule includes a Federal mandate that may result in an annual effect on State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, in the aggregate of 

$100,000,000 or more in any 1 year, the agency 

shall prepare a written statement containing the 

following: 

‘‘(1) The text of the draft proposed rulemaking 

or final rule, together with a reasonably detailed description of the need for the proposed 

rulemaking or final rule and an explanation of 

how the proposed rulemaking or final rule will 

meet that need. 

‘‘(2) An assessment of the potential costs and 

benefits of the proposed rulemaking or final 

rule, including an explanation of the manner in 

which the proposed rulemaking or final rule is 

consistent with a statutory requirement and 

avoids undue interference with State, local, and 

tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions. 

‘‘(3) A qualitative and quantitative assessment, including the underlying analysis, of benefits anticipated from the proposed rulemaking 

or final rule (such as the promotion of the efficient functioning of the economy and private 

markets, the enhancement of health and safety, 

the protection of the natural environment, and 

the elimination or reduction of discrimination or 

bias). 

‘‘(4) A qualitative and quantitative assessment, including the underlying analysis, of 

costs anticipated from the proposed rulemaking 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
July 25, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5247 

or final rule (such as the direct costs both to the 

Government in administering the final rule and 

to businesses and others in complying with the 

final rule, and any adverse effects on the efficient functioning of the economy, private markets (including productivity, employment, and 

international competitiveness), health, safety, 

and the natural environment); 

‘‘(5) Estimates by the agency, if and to the extent that the agency determines that accurate 

estimates are reasonably feasible, of— 

‘‘(A) the future compliance costs of the Federal mandate; and 

‘‘(B) any disproportionate budgetary effects of 

the Federal mandate upon any particular regions of the nation or particular State, local, or 

tribal governments, urban or rural or other 

types of communities, or particular segments of 

the private sector. 

‘‘(6)(A) A detailed description of the extent of 

the agency’s prior consultation with the private 

sector and elected representatives (under section 

204) of the affected State, local, and tribal governments. 

‘‘(B) A detailed summary of the comments and 

concerns that were presented by the private sector and State, local, or tribal governments either 

orally or in writing to the agency. 

‘‘(C) A detailed summary of the agency’s evaluation of those comments and concerns. 

‘‘(7) A detailed summary of how the agency 

complied with each of the regulatory principles 

described in section 201.’’. 

(b) REQUIREMENT FOR DETAILED SUMMARY.— 

Subsection (b) of section 202 of such Act is 

amended by inserting ‘‘detailed’’ before ‘‘summary’’. 

SEC. 410. ENHANCED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION. 

Section 204 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1534) is amended— 

(1) in the section heading, by inserting ‘‘AND 

PRIVATE SECTOR’’ before ‘‘INPUT’’; 

(2) in subsection (a)— 

(A) by inserting ‘‘, and impacted parties within the private sector (including small business),’’ 

after ‘‘on their behalf)’’; 

(B) by striking ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandates’’ and inserting ‘‘Federal mandates’’; 

and 

(3) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows: 

‘‘(c) GUIDELINES.—For appropriate implementation of subsections (a) and (b) consistent with 

applicable laws and regulations, the following 

guidelines shall be followed: 

‘‘(1) Consultations shall take place as early as 

possible, before issuance of a notice of proposed 

rulemaking, continue through the final rule 

stage, and be integrated explicitly into the rulemaking process. 

‘‘(2) Agencies shall consult with a wide variety of State, local, and tribal officials and impacted parties within the private sector (including small businesses). Geographic, political, and 

other factors that may differentiate varying 

points of view should be considered. 

‘‘(3) Agencies should estimate benefits and 

costs to assist with these consultations. The 

scope of the consultation should reflect the cost 

and significance of the Federal mandate being 

considered. 

‘‘(4) Agencies shall, to the extent practicable— 

‘‘(A) seek out the views of State, local, and 

tribal governments, and impacted parties within 

the private sector (including small business), on 

costs, benefits, and risks; and 

‘‘(B) solicit ideas about alternative methods of 

compliance and potential flexibilities, and input 

on whether the Federal regulation will harmonize with and not duplicate similar laws in 

other levels of government. 

‘‘(5) Consultations shall address the cumulative impact of regulations on the affected entities. 

‘‘(6) Agencies may accept electronic submissions of comments by relevant parties but may 

not use those comments as the sole method of 

satisfying the guidelines in this subsection.’’. 

SEC. 411. NEW AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR OFFICE OF INFORMATION 

AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS. 

Section 208 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1538) is amended to read as 

follows: 

‘‘SEC. 208. OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS RESPONSIBILITIES. 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator of the 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

shall provide meaningful guidance and oversight so that each agency’s regulations for 

which a written statement is required under section 202 are consistent with the principles and 

requirements of this title, as well as other applicable laws, and do not conflict with the policies 

or actions of another agency. If the Administrator determines that an agency’s regulations 

for which a written statement is required under 

section 202 do not comply with such principles 

and requirements, are not consistent with other 

applicable laws, or conflict with the policies or 

actions of another agency, the Administrator 

shall identify areas of non-compliance, notify 

the agency, and request that the agency comply 

before the agency finalizes the regulation concerned. 

‘‘(b) ANNUAL STATEMENTS TO CONGRESS ON

AGENCY COMPLIANCE.—The Director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs annually shall submit to Congress, including the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee 

on Oversight and Government Reform of the 

House of Representatives, a written report detailing compliance by each agency with the requirements of this title that relate to regulations 

for which a written statement is required by section 202, including activities undertaken at the 

request of the Director to improve compliance, 

during the preceding reporting period. The report shall also contain an appendix detailing 

compliance by each agency with section 204.’’. 

SEC. 412. RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF EXISTING FEDERAL REGULATIONS. 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Public Law 104–4; 2 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.) is 

amended— 

(1) by redesignating section 209 as section 210; 

and 

(2) by inserting after section 208 the following 

new section 209: 

‘‘SEC. 209. RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF EXISTING FEDERAL REGULATIONS. 

‘‘(a) REQUIREMENT.—At the request of the 

chairman or ranking minority member of a 

standing or select committee of the House of 

Representatives or the Senate, an agency shall 

conduct a retrospective analysis of an existing 

Federal regulation promulgated by an agency. 

‘‘(b) REPORT.—Each agency conducting a retrospective analysis of existing Federal regulations pursuant to subsection (a) shall submit to 

the chairman of the relevant committee, Congress, and the Comptroller General a report containing, with respect to each Federal regulation 

covered by the analysis— 

‘‘(1) a copy of the Federal regulation; 

‘‘(2) the continued need for the Federal regulation; 

‘‘(3) the nature of comments or complaints received concerning the Federal regulation from 

the public since the Federal regulation was promulgated; 

‘‘(4) the extent to which the Federal regulation overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other 

Federal regulations, and, to the extent feasible, 

with State and local governmental rules; 

‘‘(5) the degree to which technology, economic 

conditions, or other factors have changed in the 

area affected by the Federal regulation; 

‘‘(6) a complete analysis of the retrospective 

direct costs and benefits of the Federal regulation that considers studies done outside the Federal Government (if any) estimating such costs 

or benefits; and 

‘‘(7) any litigation history challenging the 

Federal regulation.’’. 

SEC. 413. EXPANSION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW. 

Section 401(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1571(a)) is amended— 

(1) in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘sections 202 and 203(a)(1) and 

(2)’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘sections 201, 202, 203(a)(1) and (2), and 205(a) and 

(b)’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘only’’ each place it appears; 

(2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ‘‘section 

202’’ and all that follows through the period at 

the end and inserting the following: ‘‘section 

202, prepare the written plan under section 

203(a)(1) and (2), or comply with section 205(a) 

and (b), a court may compel the agency to prepare such written statement, prepare such written plan, or comply with such section.’’; and 

(3) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘written 

statement or plan is required’’ and all that follows through ‘‘shall not’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘written statement under section 202, a 

written plan under section 203(a)(1) and (2), or 

compliance with sections 201 and 205(a) and (b) 

is required, the inadequacy or failure to prepare 

such statement (including the inadequacy or 

failure to prepare any estimate, analysis, statement, or description), to prepare such written 

plan, or to comply with such section may’’. 

TITLE V—IMPROVED COORDINATION OF 

AGENCY ACTIONS ON ENVIRONMENTAL 

DOCUMENTS 

SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE. 

This title may be cited as the ‘‘Responsibly 

And Professionally Invigorating Development 

Act of 2012’’ or as the ‘‘RAPID Act’’. 

SEC. 502. COORDINATION OF AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS FOR EFFICIENT DECISIONMAKING. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Part I of chapter 5 of title 5, 

United States Code, is amended by inserting 

after subchapter II the following: 

‘‘SUBCHAPTER IIA—INTERAGENCY 

COORDINATION REGARDING PERMITTING 

‘‘§ 560. Coordination of agency administrative 

operations for efficient decisionmaking 

‘‘(a) CONGRESSIONAL DECLARATION OF PURPOSE.—The purpose of this subchapter is to establish a framework and procedures to streamline, increase the efficiency of, and enhance coordination of agency administration of the regulatory review, environmental decisionmaking, 

and permitting process for projects undertaken, 

reviewed, or funded by Federal agencies. This 

subchapter will ensure that agencies administer 

the regulatory process in a manner that is efficient so that citizens are not burdened with regulatory excuses and time delays. 

‘‘(b) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this subchapter, the term— 

‘‘(1) ‘agency’ means any agency, department, 

or other unit of Federal, State, local, or Indian 

tribal government; 

‘‘(2) ‘category of projects’ means 2 or more 

projects related by project type, potential environmental impacts, geographic location, or another similar project feature or characteristic; 

‘‘(3) ‘environmental assessment’ means a concise public document for which a Federal agency is responsible that serves to— 

‘‘(A) briefly provide sufficient evidence and 

analysis for determining whether to prepare an 

environmental impact statement or a finding of 

no significant impact; 

‘‘(B) aid an agency’s compliance with NEPA 

when no environmental impact statement is necessary; and 

‘‘(C) facilitate preparation of an environmental impact statement when one is necessary; 

‘‘(4) ‘environmental impact statement’ means 

the detailed statement of significant environmental impacts required to be prepared under 

NEPA; 

‘‘(5) ‘environmental review’ means the Federal 

agency procedures for preparing an environmental impact statement, environmental assessment, categorical exclusion, or other document 

under NEPA; 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5248 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 25, 2012 

‘‘(6) ‘environmental decisionmaking process’ 

means the Federal agency procedures for undertaking and completion of any environmental 

permit, decision, approval, review, or study 

under any Federal law other than NEPA for a 

project subject to an environmental review; 

‘‘(7) ‘environmental document’ means an environmental assessment or environmental impact 

statement, and includes any supplemental document or document prepared pursuant to a court 

order; 

‘‘(8) ‘finding of no significant impact’ means a 

document by a Federal agency briefly presenting the reasons why a project, not otherwise 

subject to a categorical exclusion, will not have 

a significant effect on the human environment 

and for which an environmental impact statement therefore will not be prepared; 

‘‘(9) ‘lead agency’ means the Federal agency 

preparing or responsible for preparing the environmental document; 

‘‘(10) ‘NEPA’ means the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.); 

‘‘(11) ‘project’ means major Federal actions 

that are construction activities undertaken with 

Federal funds or that are construction activities 

that require approval by a permit or regulatory 

decision issued by a Federal agency; 

‘‘(12) ‘project sponsor’ means the agency or 

other entity, including any private or publicprivate entity, that seeks approval for a project 

or is otherwise responsible for undertaking a 

project; and 

‘‘(13) ‘record of decision’ means a document 

prepared by a lead agency under NEPA following an environmental impact statement that 

states the lead agency’s decision, identifies the 

alternatives considered by the agency in reaching its decision and states whether all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected have 

been adopted, and if not, why they were not 

adopted. 

‘‘(c) PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS.—Upon the request of the lead agency, 

the project sponsor shall be authorized to prepare any document for purposes of an environmental review required in support of any project 

or approval by the lead agency if the lead agency furnishes oversight in such preparation and 

independently evaluates such document and the 

document is approved and adopted by the lead 

agency prior to taking any action or making 

any approval based on such document. 

‘‘(d) ADOPTION AND USE OF DOCUMENTS.— 

‘‘(1) DOCUMENTS PREPARED UNDER NEPA.— 

‘‘(A) Not more than 1 environmental impact 

statement and 1 environmental assessment shall 

be prepared under NEPA for a project (except 

for supplemental environmental documents prepared under NEPA or environmental documents 

prepared pursuant to a court order), and, except 

as otherwise provided by law, the lead agency 

shall prepare the environmental impact statement or environmental assessment. After the 

lead agency issues a record of decision, no Federal agency responsible for making any approval for that project may rely on a document 

other than the environmental document prepared by the lead agency. 

‘‘(B) Upon the request of a project sponsor, a 

lead agency may adopt, use, or rely upon secondary and cumulative impact analyses included in any environmental document prepared 

under NEPA for projects in the same geographic 

area where the secondary and cumulative impact analyses provide information and data that 

pertains to the NEPA decision for the project 

under review. 

‘‘(2) STATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS; SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS.— 

‘‘(A) Upon the request of a project sponsor, a 

lead agency may adopt a document that has 

been prepared for a project under State laws 

and procedures as the environmental impact 

statement or environmental assessment for the 

project, provided that the State laws and procedures under which the document was prepared 

provide environmental protection and opportunities for public involvement that are substantially equivalent to NEPA. 

‘‘(B) An environmental document adopted 

under subparagraph (A) is deemed to satisfy the 

lead agency’s obligation under NEPA to prepare 

an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment. 

‘‘(C) In the case of a document described in 

subparagraph (A), during the period after preparation of the document but before its adoption 

by the lead agency, the lead agency shall prepare and publish a supplement to that document 

if the lead agency determines that— 

‘‘(i) a significant change has been made to the 

project that is relevant for purposes of environmental review of the project; or 

‘‘(ii) there have been significant changes in 

circumstances or availability of information relevant to the environmental review for the 

project. 

‘‘(D) If the agency prepares and publishes a 

supplemental document under subparagraph 

(C), the lead agency may solicit comments from 

agencies and the public on the supplemental 

document for a period of not more than 45 days 

beginning on the date of the publication of the 

supplement. 

‘‘(E) A lead agency shall issue its record of decision or finding of no significant impact, as appropriate, based upon the document adopted 

under subparagraph (A), and any supplements 

thereto. 

‘‘(3) CONTEMPORANEOUS PROJECTS.—If the 

lead agency determines that there is a reasonable likelihood that the project will have similar 

environmental impacts as a similar project in 

geographical proximity to the project, and that 

similar project was subject to environmental review or similar State procedures within the 5 

year period immediately preceding the date that 

the lead agency makes that determination, the 

lead agency may adopt the environmental document that resulted from that environmental review or similar State procedure. The lead agency may adopt such an environmental document, 

if it is prepared under State laws and procedures only upon making a favorable determination on such environmental document pursuant 

to paragraph (2)(A). 

‘‘(e) PARTICIPATING AGENCIES.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The lead agency shall be 

responsible for inviting and designating participating agencies in accordance with this subsection. The lead agency shall provide the invitation or notice of the designation in writing. 

‘‘(2) FEDERAL PARTICIPATING AGENCIES.—Any 

Federal agency that is required to adopt the environmental document of the lead agency for a 

project shall be designated as a participating 

agency and shall collaborate on the preparation 

of the environmental document, unless the Federal agency informs the lead agency, in writing, 

by a time specified by the lead agency in the 

designation of the Federal agency that the Federal agency— 

‘‘(A) has no jurisdiction or authority with respect to the project; 

‘‘(B) has no expertise or information relevant 

to the project; and 

‘‘(C) does not intend to submit comments on 

the project. 

‘‘(3) INVITATION.—The lead agency shall identify, as early as practicable in the environmental review for a project, any agencies other 

than an agency described in paragraph (2) that 

may have an interest in the project, including, 

where appropriate, Governors of affected States, 

and heads of appropriate tribal and local (including county) governments, and shall invite 

such identified agencies and officials to become 

participating agencies in the environmental review for the project. The invitation shall set a 

deadline of 30 days for responses to be submitted, which may only be extended by the lead 

agency for good cause shown. Any agency that 

fails to respond prior to the deadline shall be 

deemed to have declined the invitation. 

‘‘(4) EFFECT OF DECLINING PARTICIPATING

AGENCY INVITATION.—Any agency that declines 

a designation or invitation by the lead agency 

to be a participating agency shall be precluded 

from submitting comments on any document prepared under NEPA for that project or taking 

any measures to oppose, based on the environmental review, any permit, license, or approval 

related to that project. 

‘‘(5) EFFECT OF DESIGNATION.—Designation as 

a participating agency under this subsection 

does not imply that the participating agency— 

‘‘(A) supports a proposed project; or 

‘‘(B) has any jurisdiction over, or special expertise with respect to evaluation of, the project. 

‘‘(6) COOPERATING AGENCY.—A participating 

agency may also be designated by a lead agency 

as a ‘cooperating agency’ under the regulations 

contained in part 1500 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 2011. 

Designation as a cooperating agency shall have 

no effect on designation as participating agency. No agency that is not a participating agency 

may be designated as a cooperating agency. 

‘‘(7) CONCURRENT REVIEWS.—Each Federal 

agency shall— 

‘‘(A) carry out obligations of the Federal 

agency under other applicable law concurrently 

and in conjunction with the review required 

under NEPA; and 

‘‘(B) in accordance with the rules made by the 

Council on Environmental Quality pursuant to 

subsection (n)(1), make and carry out such 

rules, policies, and procedures as may be reasonably necessary to enable the agency to ensure completion of the environmental review 

and environmental decisionmaking process in a 

timely, coordinated, and environmentally responsible manner. 

‘‘(8) COMMENTS.—Each participating agency 

shall limit its comments on a project to areas 

that are within the authority and expertise of 

such participating agency. Each participating 

agency shall identify in such comments the statutory authority of the participating agency pertaining to the subject matter of its comments. 

The lead agency shall not act upon, respond to 

or include in any document prepared under 

NEPA, any comment submitted by a participating agency that concerns matters that are 

outside of the authority and expertise of the 

commenting participating agency. 

‘‘(f) PROJECT INITIATION REQUEST.— 

‘‘(1) NOTICE.—A project sponsor shall provide 

the Federal agency responsible for undertaking 

a project with notice of the initiation of the 

project by providing a description of the proposed project, the general location of the proposed project, and a statement of any Federal 

approvals anticipated to be necessary for the 

proposed project, for the purpose of informing 

the Federal agency that the environmental review should be initiated. 

‘‘(2) LEAD AGENCY INITIATION.—The agency 

receiving a project initiation notice under paragraph (1) shall promptly identify the lead agency for the project, and the lead agency shall initiate the environmental review within a period 

of 45 days after receiving the notice required by 

paragraph (1) by inviting or designating agencies to become participating agencies, or, where 

the lead agency determines that no participating agencies are required for the project, by 

taking such other actions that are reasonable 

and necessary to initiate the environmental review. 

‘‘(g) ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS.— 

‘‘(1) PARTICIPATION.—As early as practicable 

during the environmental review, but no later 

than during scoping for a project requiring the 

preparation of an environmental impact statement, the lead agency shall provide an opportunity for involvement by cooperating agencies 

in determining the range of alternatives to be 

considered for a project. 

‘‘(2) RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES.—Following participation under paragraph (1), the lead agency 

shall determine the range of alternatives for 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
July 25, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5249 

consideration in any document which the lead 

agency is responsible for preparing for the 

project, subject to the following limitations: 

‘‘(A) NO EVALUATION OF CERTAIN ALTERNATIVES.—No Federal agency shall evaluate any 

alternative that was identified but not carried 

forward for detailed evaluation in an environmental document or evaluated and not selected 

in any environmental document prepared under 

NEPA for the same project. 

‘‘(B) ONLY FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED.—Where a project is being constructed, 

managed, funded, or undertaken by a project 

sponsor that is not a Federal agency, Federal 

agencies shall only be required to evaluate alternatives that the project sponsor could feasibly 

undertake, consistent with the purpose of and 

the need for the project, including alternatives 

that can be undertaken by the project sponsor 

and that are technically and economically feasible. 

‘‘(3) METHODOLOGIES.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The lead agency shall determine, in collaboration with cooperating agencies at appropriate times during the environmental review, the methodologies to be used and 

the level of detail required in the analysis of 

each alternative for a project. The lead agency 

shall include in the environmental document a 

description of the methodologies used and how 

the methodologies were selected. 

‘‘(B) NO EVALUATION OF INAPPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVES.—When a lead agency determines 

that an alternative does not meet the purpose 

and need for a project, that alternative is not 

required to be evaluated in detail in an environmental document. 

‘‘(4) PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE.—At the discretion of the lead agency, the preferred alternative for a project, after being identified, may 

be developed to a higher level of detail than 

other alternatives in order to facilitate the development of mitigation measures or concurrent 

compliance with other applicable laws if the 

lead agency determines that the development of 

such higher level of detail will not prevent the 

lead agency from making an impartial decision 

as to whether to accept another alternative 

which is being considered in the environmental 

review. 

‘‘(5) EMPLOYMENT ANALYSIS.—The evaluation 

of each alternative in an environmental impact 

statement or an environmental assessment shall 

identify the potential effects of the alternative 

on employment, including potential short-term 

and long-term employment increases and reductions and shifts in employment. 

‘‘(h) COORDINATION AND SCHEDULING.— 

‘‘(1) COORDINATION PLAN.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The lead agency shall establish and implement a plan for coordinating 

public and agency participation in and comment 

on the environmental review for a project or category of projects to facilitate the expeditious 

resolution of the environmental review. 

‘‘(B) SCHEDULE.— 

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The lead agency shall establish as part of the coordination plan for a 

project, after consultation with each participating agency and, where applicable, the 

project sponsor, a schedule for completion of the 

environmental review. The schedule shall include deadlines, consistent with subsection (i), 

for decisions under any other Federal laws (including the issuance or denial of a permit or license) relating to the project that is covered by 

the schedule. 

‘‘(ii) FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION.—In establishing the schedule, the lead agency shall consider factors such as— 

‘‘(I) the responsibilities of participating agencies under applicable laws; 

‘‘(II) resources available to the participating 

agencies; 

‘‘(III) overall size and complexity of the 

project; 

‘‘(IV) overall schedule for and cost of the 

project; 

‘‘(V) the sensitivity of the natural and historic 

resources that could be affected by the project; 

and 

‘‘(VI) the extent to which similar projects in 

geographic proximity were recently subject to 

environmental review or similar State procedures. 

‘‘(iii) COMPLIANCE WITH THE SCHEDULE.— 

‘‘(I) All participating agencies shall comply 

with the time periods established in the schedule 

or with any modified time periods, where the 

lead agency modifies the schedule pursuant to 

subparagraph (D). 

‘‘(II) The lead agency shall disregard and 

shall not respond to or include in any document 

prepared under NEPA, any comment or information submitted or any finding made by a participating agency that is outside of the time period established in the schedule or modification 

pursuant to subparagraph (D) for that agency’s 

comment, submission or finding. 

‘‘(III) If a participating agency fails to object 

in writing to a lead agency decision, finding or 

request for concurrence within the time period 

established under law or by the lead agency, the 

agency shall be deemed to have concurred in the 

decision, finding or request. 

‘‘(C) CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER TIME PERIODS.—A schedule under subparagraph (B) shall 

be consistent with any other relevant time periods established under Federal law. 

‘‘(D) MODIFICATION.—The lead agency may— 

‘‘(i) lengthen a schedule established under 

subparagraph (B) for good cause; and 

‘‘(ii) shorten a schedule only with the concurrence of the cooperating agencies. 

‘‘(E) DISSEMINATION.—A copy of a schedule 

under subparagraph (B), and of any modifications to the schedule, shall be— 

‘‘(i) provided within 15 days of completion or 

modification of such schedule to all participating agencies and to the project sponsor; and 

‘‘(ii) made available to the public. 

‘‘(F) ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITY OF LEAD

AGENCY.—With respect to the environmental review for any project, the lead agency shall have 

authority and responsibility to take such actions as are necessary and proper, within the 

authority of the lead agency, to facilitate the 

expeditious resolution of the environmental review for the project. 

‘‘(i) DEADLINES.—The following deadlines 

shall apply to any project subject to review 

under NEPA and any decision under any Federal law relating to such project (including the 

issuance or denial of a permit or license or any 

required finding): 

‘‘(1) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DEADLINES.—The 

lead agency shall complete the environmental 

review within the following deadlines: 

‘‘(A) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

PROJECTS.—For projects requiring preparation of 

an environmental impact statement— 

‘‘(i) the lead agency shall issue an environmental impact statement within 2 years after the 

earlier of the date the lead agency receives the 

project initiation request or a Notice of Intent to 

Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement is 

published in the Federal Register; and 

‘‘(ii) in circumstances where the lead agency 

has prepared an environmental assessment and 

determined that an environmental impact statement will be required, the lead agency shall 

issue the environmental impact statement within 

2 years after the date of publication of the Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in the Federal Register. 

‘‘(B) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROJECTS.— 

For projects requiring preparation of an environmental assessment, the lead agency shall 

issue a finding of no significant impact or publish a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in the Federal Register 

within 1 year after the earlier of the date the 

lead agency receives the project initiation request, makes a decision to prepare an environmental assessment, or sends out participating 

agency invitations. 

‘‘(2) EXTENSIONS.— 

‘‘(A) REQUIREMENTS.—The environmental review deadlines may be extended only if— 

‘‘(i) a different deadline is established by 

agreement of the lead agency, the project sponsor, and all participating agencies; or 

‘‘(ii) the deadline is extended by the lead 

agency for good cause. 

‘‘(B) LIMITATION.—The environmental review 

shall not be extended by more than 1 year for a 

project requiring preparation of an environmental impact statement or by more than 180 

days for a project requiring preparation of an 

environmental assessment. 

‘‘(3) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS.— 

‘‘(A) COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT STATEMENT.—For comments by agencies 

and the public on a draft environmental impact 

statement, the lead agency shall establish a 

comment period of not more than 60 days after 

publication in the Federal Register of notice of 

the date of public availability of such document, 

unless— 

‘‘(i) a different deadline is established by 

agreement of the lead agency, the project sponsor, and all participating agencies; or 

‘‘(ii) the deadline is extended by the lead 

agency for good cause. 

‘‘(B) OTHER COMMENTS.—For all other comment periods for agency or public comments in 

the environmental review process, the lead 

agency shall establish a comment period of no 

more than 30 days from availability of the materials on which comment is requested, unless— 

‘‘(i) a different deadline is established by 

agreement of the lead agency, the project sponsor, and all participating agencies; or 

‘‘(ii) the deadline is extended by the lead 

agency for good cause. 

‘‘(4) DEADLINES FOR DECISIONS UNDER OTHER

LAWS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of 

law, in any case in which a decision under any 

other Federal law relating to the undertaking of 

a project being reviewed under NEPA (including 

the issuance or denial of a permit or license) is 

required to be made, the following deadlines 

shall apply: 

‘‘(A) DECISIONS PRIOR TO RECORD OF DECISION

OR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.—If a 

Federal agency is required to approve, or otherwise to act upon, a permit, license, or other similar application for approval related to a project 

prior to the record of decision or finding of no 

significant impact, such Federal agency shall 

approve or otherwise act not later than the end 

of a 90 day period beginning— 

‘‘(i) after all other relevant agency review related to the project is complete; and 

‘‘(ii) after the lead agency publishes a notice 

of the availability of the final environmental impact statement or issuance of other final environmental documents, or no later than such 

other date that is otherwise required by law, 

whichever event occurs first. 

‘‘(B) OTHER DECISIONS.—With regard to any 

approval or other action related to a project by 

a Federal agency that is not subject to subparagraph (A), each Federal agency shall approve or 

otherwise act not later than the end of a period 

of 180 days beginning— 

‘‘(i) after all other relevant agency review related to the project is complete; and 

‘‘(ii) after the lead agency issues the record of 

decision or finding of no significant impact, unless a different deadline is established by agreement of the Federal agency, lead agency, and 

the project sponsor, where applicable, or the 

deadline is extended by the Federal agency for 

good cause, provided that such extension shall 

not extend beyond a period that is 1 year after 

the lead agency issues the record of decision or 

finding of no significant impact. 

‘‘(C) FAILURE TO ACT.—In the event that any 

Federal agency fails to approve, or otherwise to 

act upon, a permit, license, or other similar application for approval related to a project within 

the applicable deadline described in subparagraph (A) or (B), the permit, license, or other 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5250 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 25, 2012 

similar application shall be deemed approved by 

such agency and the agency shall take action in 

accordance with such approval within 30 days 

of the applicable deadline described in subparagraph (A) or (B). 

‘‘(D) FINAL AGENCY ACTION.—Any approval 

under subparagraph (C) is deemed to be final 

agency action, and may not be reversed by any 

agency. In any action under chapter 7 seeking 

review of such a final agency action, the court 

may not set aside such agency action by reason 

of that agency action having occurred under 

this paragraph. 

‘‘(j) ISSUE IDENTIFICATION AND RESOLUTION.— 

‘‘(1) COOPERATION.—The lead agency and the 

participating agencies shall work cooperatively 

in accordance with this section to identify and 

resolve issues that could delay completion of the 

environmental review or could result in denial 

of any approvals required for the project under 

applicable laws. 

‘‘(2) LEAD AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES.—The 

lead agency shall make information available to 

the participating agencies as early as practicable in the environmental review regarding 

the environmental, historic, and socioeconomic 

resources located within the project area and 

the general locations of the alternatives under 

consideration. Such information may be based 

on existing data sources, including geographic 

information systems mapping. 

‘‘(3) PARTICIPATING AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES.—Based on information received from the 

lead agency, participating agencies shall identify, as early as practicable, any issues of concern regarding the project’s potential environmental, historic, or socioeconomic impacts. In 

this paragraph, issues of concern include any 

issues that could substantially delay or prevent 

an agency from granting a permit or other approval that is needed for the project. 

‘‘(4) ISSUE RESOLUTION.— 

‘‘(A) MEETING OF PARTICIPATING AGENCIES.— 

At any time upon request of a project sponsor, 

the lead agency shall promptly convene a meeting with the relevant participating agencies and 

the project sponsor, to resolve issues that could 

delay completion of the environmental review or 

could result in denial of any approvals required 

for the project under applicable laws. 

‘‘(B) NOTICE THAT RESOLUTION CANNOT BE

ACHIEVED.—If a resolution cannot be achieved 

within 30 days following such a meeting and a 

determination by the lead agency that all information necessary to resolve the issue has been 

obtained, the lead agency shall notify the heads 

of all participating agencies, the project sponsor, and the Council on Environmental Quality 

for further proceedings in accordance with section 204 of NEPA, and shall publish such notification in the Federal Register. 

‘‘(k) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—The head of each 

Federal agency shall report annually to Congress— 

‘‘(1) the projects for which the agency initiated preparation of an environmental impact 

statement or environmental assessment; 

‘‘(2) the projects for which the agency issued 

a record of decision or finding of no significant 

impact and the length of time it took the agency 

to complete the environmental review for each 

such project; 

‘‘(3) the filing of any lawsuits against the 

agency seeking judicial review of a permit, license, or approval issued by the agency for an 

action subject to NEPA, including the date the 

complaint was filed, the court in which the complaint was filed, and a summary of the claims 

for which judicial review was sought; and 

‘‘(4) the resolution of any lawsuits against the 

agency that sought judicial review of a permit, 

license, or approval issued by the agency for an 

action subject to NEPA. 

‘‘(l) LIMITATIONS ON CLAIMS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other 

provision of law, a claim arising under Federal 

law seeking judicial review of a permit, license, 

or approval issued by a Federal agency for an 

action subject to NEPA shall be barred unless— 

‘‘(A) in the case of a claim pertaining to a 

project for which an environmental review was 

conducted and an opportunity for comment was 

provided, the claim is filed by a party that submitted a comment during the environmental review on the issue on which the party seeks judicial review, and such comment was sufficiently 

detailed to put the lead agency on notice of the 

issue upon which the party seeks judicial review; and 

‘‘(B) filed within 180 days after publication of 

a notice in the Federal Register announcing 

that the permit, license, or approval is final pursuant to the law under which the agency action 

is taken, unless a shorter time is specified in the 

Federal law pursuant to which judicial review is 

allowed. 

‘‘(2) NEW INFORMATION.—The preparation of a 

supplemental environmental impact statement, 

when required, is deemed a separate final agency action and the deadline for filing a claim for 

judicial review of such action shall be 180 days 

after the date of publication of a notice in the 

Federal Register announcing the record of decision for such action. Any claim challenging 

agency action on the basis of information in a 

supplemental environmental impact statement 

shall be limited to challenges on the basis of 

that information. 

‘‘(3) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this 

subsection shall be construed to create a right to 

judicial review or place any limit on filing a 

claim that a person has violated the terms of a 

permit, license, or approval. 

‘‘(m) CATEGORIES OF PROJECTS.—The authorities granted under this subchapter may be exercised for an individual project or a category of 

projects. 

‘‘(n) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The requirements of 

this subchapter shall apply only to environmental reviews and environmental decisionmaking processes initiated after the date of enactment of this subchapter. 

‘‘(o) APPLICABILITY.—Except as provided in 

subsection (p), this subchapter applies, according to the provisions thereof, to all projects for 

which a Federal agency is required to undertake 

an environmental review or make a decision 

under an environmental law for a project for 

which a Federal agency is undertaking an environmental review. 

‘‘(p) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in this section 

shall be construed to supersede, amend, or modify sections 134, 135, 139, 325, 326, and 327 of title 

23, United States Code, sections 5303 and 5304 of 

title 49, United States Code, or subtitle C of title 

I of division A of the Moving Ahead for Progress 

in the 21st Century Act and the amendments 

made by such subtitle (Public Law 112–141).’’. 

(b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, 

is amended by inserting after the item relating 

to subchapter II the following: 

‘‘SUBCHAPTER IIA—INTERAGENCY COORDINATION REGARDING PERMITTING 

‘‘560. Coordination of agency administrative 

operations for efficient decisionmaking.’’. 

(c) REGULATIONS.— 

(1) COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.— 

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this title, the Council on Environmental 

Quality shall amend the regulations contained 

in part 1500 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, to implement the provisions of this title 

and the amendments made by this title, and 

shall by rule designate States with laws and 

procedures that satisfy the criteria under section 560(d)(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code. 

(2) FEDERAL AGENCIES.—Not later than 120 

days after the date that the Council on Environmental Quality amends the regulations contained in part 1500 of title 40, Code of Federal 

Regulations, to implement the provisions of this 

title and the amendments made by this title, 

each Federal agency with regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) shall amend such 

regulations to implement the provisions of this 

subchapter. 

TITLE VI—SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY 

SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE. 

This title may be cited as the ‘‘SEC Regulatory Accountability Act’’. 

SEC. 602. CONSIDERATION BY THE SECURITIES 

AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF 

THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF ITS 

REGULATIONS AND CERTAIN OTHER 

AGENCY ACTIONS. 

Section 23 of the Securities Exchange Act of 

1934 (15 U.S.C. 78w) is amended by adding at 

the end the following: 

‘‘(e) CONSIDERATION OF COSTS AND BENEFITS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Before issuing a regulation 

under the securities laws, as defined in section 

3(a), the Commission shall— 

‘‘(A) clearly identify the nature and source of 

the problem that the proposed regulation is designed to address, as well as assess the significance of that problem, to enable assessment of 

whether any new regulation is warranted; 

‘‘(B) utilize the Chief Economist to assess the 

costs and benefits, both qualitative and quantitative, of the intended regulation and propose 

or adopt a regulation only on a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify the costs of the regulation; 

‘‘(C) identify and assess available alternatives 

to the regulation that were considered, including modification of an existing regulation, together with an explanation of why the regulation meets the regulatory objectives more effectively than the alternatives; and 

‘‘(D) ensure that any regulation is accessible, 

consistent, written in plain language, and easy 

to understand and shall measure, and seek to 

improve, the actual results of regulatory requirements. 

‘‘(2) CONSIDERATIONS AND ACTIONS.— 

‘‘(A) REQUIRED ACTIONS.—In deciding whether 

and how to regulate, the Commission shall assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of 

not regulating, and choose the approach that 

maximizes net benefits. Specifically, the Commission shall— 

‘‘(i) consistent with the requirements of section 3(f) (15 U.S.C. 78c(f)), section 2(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77b(b)), section 

202(c) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 

U.S.C. 80b–2(c)), and section 2(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a–2(c)), 

consider whether the rulemaking will promote 

efficiency, competition, and capital formation; 

‘‘(ii) evaluate whether, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, the regulation is tailored to impose the least burden on society, including market participants, individuals, businesses of differing sizes, and other entities (including State and local governmental entities), 

taking into account, to the extent practicable, 

the cumulative costs of regulations; and 

‘‘(iii) evaluate whether the regulation is inconsistent, incompatible, or duplicative of other 

Federal regulations. 

‘‘(B) ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS.—In addition, in making a reasoned determination of the 

costs and benefits of a potential regulation, the 

Commission shall, to the extent that each is relevant to the particular proposed regulation, 

take into consideration the impact of the regulation on— 

‘‘(i) investor choice; 

‘‘(ii) market liquidity in the securities markets; and 

‘‘(iii) small businesses 

‘‘(3) EXPLANATION AND COMMENTS.—The Commission shall explain in its final rule the nature 

of comments that it received, including those 

from the industry or consumer groups concerning the potential costs or benefits of the proposed rule or proposed rule change, and shall 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
July 25, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5251 

provide a response to those comments in its final 

rule, including an explanation of any changes 

that were made in response to those comments 

and the reasons that the Commission did not incorporate those industry group concerns related 

to the potential costs or benefits in the final 

rule. 

‘‘(4) REVIEW OF EXISTING REGULATIONS.—Not 

later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 

the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act, and 

every 5 years thereafter, the Commission shall 

review its regulations to determine whether any 

such regulations are outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and shall 

modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in 

accordance with such review. 

‘‘(5) POST-ADOPTION IMPACT ASSESSMENT.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Whenever the Commission 

adopts or amends a regulation designated as a 

‘major rule’ within the meaning of section 804(2) 

of title 5, United States Code, it shall state, in 

its adopting release, the following: 

‘‘(i) The purposes and intended consequences 

of the regulation. 

‘‘(ii) Appropriate post-implementation quantitative and qualitative metrics to measure the 

economic impact of the regulation and to measure the extent to which the regulation has accomplished the stated purposes. 

‘‘(iii) The assessment plan that will be used, 

consistent with the requirements of subparagraph (B) and under the supervision of the 

Chief Economist of the Commission, to assess 

whether the regulation has achieved the stated 

purposes. 

‘‘(iv) Any unintended or negative consequences that the Commission foresees may result from the regulation. 

‘‘(B) REQUIREMENTS OF ASSESSMENT PLAN AND

REPORT.— 

‘‘(i) REQUIREMENTS OF PLAN.—The assessment 

plan required under this paragraph shall consider the costs, benefits, and intended and unintended consequences of the regulation. The plan 

shall specify the data to be collected, the methods for collection and analysis of the data and 

a date for completion of the assessment. 

‘‘(ii) SUBMISSION AND PUBLICATION OF REPORT.—The Chief Economist shall submit the 

completed assessment report to the Commission 

no later than 2 years after the publication of the 

adopting release, unless the Commission, at the 

request of the Chief Economist, has published at 

least 90 days before such date a notice in the 

Federal Register extending the date and providing specific reasons why an extension is necessary. Within 7 days after submission to the 

Commission of the final assessment report, it 

shall be published in the Federal Register for 

notice and comment. Any material modification 

of the plan, as necessary to assess unforeseen 

aspects or consequences of the regulation, shall 

be promptly published in the Federal Register 

for notice and comment. 

‘‘(iii) DATA COLLECTION NOT SUBJECT TO NOTICE AND COMMENT REQUIREMENTS.—If the Commission has published its assessment plan for 

notice and comment, specifying the data to be 

collected and method of collection, at least 30 

days prior to adoption of a final regulation or 

amendment, such collection of data shall not be 

subject to the notice and comment requirements 

in section 3506(c) of title 44, United States Code 

(commonly referred to as the Paperwork Reduction Act). Any material modifications of the 

plan that require collection of data not previously published for notice and comment shall 

also be exempt from such requirements if the 

Commission has published notice for comment in 

the Federal Register of the additional data to be 

collected, at least 30 days prior to initiation of 

data collection. 

‘‘(iv) FINAL ACTION.—Not later than 180 days 

after publication of the assessment report in the 

Federal Register, the Commission shall issue for 

notice and comment a proposal to amend or rescind the regulation, or publish a notice that 

the Commission has determined that no action 

will be taken on the regulation. Such a notice 

will be deemed a final agency action. 

‘‘(6) COVERED REGULATIONS AND OTHER AGENCY ACTIONS.—Solely as used in this subsection, 

the term ‘regulation’— 

‘‘(A) means an agency statement of general 

applicability and future effect that is designed 

to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or to describe the procedure or practice requirements of an agency, including rules, orders 

of general applicability, interpretive releases, 

and other statements of general applicability 

that the agency intends to have the force and 

effect of law; and 

‘‘(B) does not include— 

‘‘(i) a regulation issued in accordance with 

the formal rulemaking provisions of section 556 

or 557 of title 5, United States Code; 

‘‘(ii) a regulation that is limited to agency organization, management, or personnel matters; 

‘‘(iii) a regulation promulgated pursuant to 

statutory authority that expressly prohibits 

compliance with this provision; and 

‘‘(iv) a regulation that is certified by the 

agency to be an emergency action, if such certification is published in the Federal Register.’’. 

SEC. 603. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO 

OTHER REGULATORY ENTITIES 

It is the sense of the Congress that other regulatory entities, including the Public Company 

Accounting Oversight Board, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, and any national 

securities association registered under section 

15A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 

U.S.C. 78o–3) should also follow the requirements of section 23(e) of such Act, as added by 

this title. 

TITLE VII—CONSIDERATION BY COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION OF CERTAIN COSTS AND BENEFITS 

SEC. 701. CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMODITY 

FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION OF 

THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF ITS 

REGULATIONS AND ORDERS. 

Section 15(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act 

(7 U.S.C. 19(a)) is amended by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Before promulgating a regulation under this Act or issuing an order (except as provided in paragraph (3)), the Commission, through the Office of the Chief Economist, 

shall assess the costs and benefits, both qualitative and quantitative, of the intended regulation and propose or adopt a regulation only on 

a reasoned determination that the benefits of 

the intended regulation justify the costs of the 

intended regulation (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify). It must 

measure, and seek to improve, the actual results 

of regulatory requirements. 

‘‘(2) CONSIDERATIONS.—In making a reasoned 

determination of the costs and the benefits, the 

Commission shall evaluate— 

‘‘(A) considerations of protection of market 

participants and the public; 

‘‘(B) considerations of the efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures and 

swaps markets; 

‘‘(C) considerations of the impact on market 

liquidity in the futures and swaps markets; 

‘‘(D) considerations of price discovery; 

‘‘(E) considerations of sound risk management 

practices; 

‘‘(F) available alternatives to direct regulation; 

‘‘(G) the degree and nature of the risks posed 

by various activities within the scope of its jurisdiction; 

‘‘(H) whether, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, the regulation is tailored to 

impose the least burden on society, including 

market participants, individuals, businesses of 

differing sizes, and other entities (including 

small communities and governmental entities), 

taking into account, to the extent practicable, 

the cumulative costs of regulations; 

‘‘(I) whether the regulation is inconsistent, incompatible, or duplicative of other Federal regulations; 

‘‘(J) whether, in choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, those approaches maximize net benefits (including potential economic, 

environmental, and other benefits, distributive 

impacts, and equity); and 

‘‘(K) other public interest considerations.’’. 

The Acting CHAIR. No further 

amendment to the bill, as amended, 

shall be in order except those printed 

in part B of House Report 112–616. Each 

such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 

report, by a Member designated in the 

report, shall be considered read, shall 

be debatable for the time specified in 

the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 OFFERED BY MR. HASTINGS

OF FLORIDA

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order 

to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 

part B of House Report 112–616. 

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will 

designate the amendment. 

The text of the amendment is as follows: 

Page 3, line 18, strike ‘‘or (d)’’ and insert 

the following: ‘‘(d), or (e)’’. 

Page 5, insert after line 7 the following: 

(e) SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY ACTIONS ENSURING SAFE DRINKING WATER.—The moratorium in section 102(a) shall not apply to any 

significant regulatory action that is intended to ensure that drinking water is safe 

to drink. 

Page 10, insert after line 13 the following 

and redesignate provisions accordingly: 

(c) SAFE DRINKING WATER EXCEPTION.—Section 202 shall not apply to a midnight rule 

that is intended to ensure that drinking 

water is safe to drink. 

Page 20, insert after line 12 the following: 

SEC. 305. EXCEPTION FOR SAFE DRINKING 

WATER. 

The provisions of this title do not apply to 

any consent decree or settlement agreement 

pertaining to a regulatory action that is intended to ensure that drinking water is safe 

to drink. 

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to 

House Resolution 738, the gentleman 

from Florida (Mr. HASTINGS) and a 

Member opposed each will control 5 

minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Florida. 

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to introduce this 

amendment to help ensure clean drinking water. This measure amends H.R. 

4078, the Regulatory Freeze for Jobs 

Act, by exempting from the moratorium regulations that ensure drinking 

water is safe. 

Safe drinking water is essential to 

public health. There is a long and terrible history of polluters dumping all 

matter of toxins into rivers, streams, 

and other sources of drinking water. 

Aside from the environmental destruction, it costs an enormous amount to 

effectively clean such sources once 

they have been polluted. It costs even 

more to provide the necessary medical 

care for persons made sick by exposure 

to polluted water. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5252 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 25, 2012 

We cannot afford to weaken or delay 

critical agency actions designed to ensure the continued enforcement and 

regulation of clean water rules. 

b 1730 

This is not about creating jobs. Polluting water doesn’t create more jobs, 

but it does negatively impact public 

health. We must remain vigilant in 

protecting our water supplies, and I 

urge my colleagues to vote in favor of 

this amendment. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. 

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I oppose 

this amendment because it is unnecessary and weakens the important reforms made by the bill. This administration has been issuing a torrent of 

the most expensive regulations, each of 

which cost the economy over $100 million. According to a study by The Heritage Foundation, President Obama already has adopted 106 regulations that 

add $46 billion in annual regulatory 

costs to the private sector, and nearly 

$11 billion in one-time implementation 

cost. 

By contrast, in his first 3 years in office, President Bush adopted 28 major 

regulations costing the private sector 

$8 billion annually. 

The bill is designed only to prevent 

unnecessary regulations. Titles I and II 

have reasonable exceptions for the 

President to allow regulations necessary because of an ‘‘imminent threat 

to health or safety or other emergency.’’ And the congressional waiver 

provision of title I allows the President 

to authorize regulations during the 

moratorium period with the permission 

of Congress. Regulations that the 

President wants enacted simply have 

to go through Congress. Balance of 

power. 

Title III prevents agencies from using 

litigation with special interest groups 

to force more regulations on the economy without sufficient transparency, 

public participation, and judicial scrutiny. For too long, agencies have used 

consent decrees and settlement agreements as cover to promulgate regulations with less time for review of cost 

and benefits, alternatives, and public 

comment. This is yet another way that 

agencies impose unnecessary and illconsidered regulations on the public. It 

should be stopped. 

For these reasons, I oppose the 

amendment, and I reserve the balance 

of my time. 

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 

time in light of the fact that I don’t 

think anyone else is going to speak on 

this amendment. 

I clearly understand my colleague’s 

position as set forth. One thing I cannot abide and offer by way of constructive criticism is the fact that all over 

this Nation too often we find that polluters cause our streams, rivers, and 

waters to be damaged. I’m a fifth-generation Floridian, and I heard the gentleman in the Rules Committee and on 

the floor today speaking pridefully, 

and rightfully, about his children. I’ve 

seen the damage in Florida, and I have 

seen much of the damage that has been 

done around the Nation. While it is 

true that the legislation as offered 

would allow for the President to come 

to Congress for approval, by the time 

Congress gets through doing anything, 

the pollution that we are trying to 

avoid may very well have overtaken us. 

We have a very fragile ecosystem in 

our country and, as it pertains to 

water, it would just be absurd for us 

not to be able to address it immediately. 

I’m pleased to yield such time as he 

will consume to the gentleman from 

Michigan (Mr. CONYERS). 

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the author of 

this amendment because it highlights 

the dangers of this bill. And surely if 

there is anything that we prioritize in 

our whole ecosystem is the value and 

importance of clean water over profits, 

and I am astounded that anyone would 

oppose the amendment, frankly. 

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. With that, 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 

consume. 

I would just like to make it clear, 

again, that any regulations that are 

needed, that the gentleman from Florida feels are needed, that the President 

feels are needed, those can be enacted 

under this law. It simply requires Congress to play a role. I have no doubt 

that the President opposes this bill. I 

understand that he doesn’t want to 

share his regulatory power with this 

body. I’m sure a lot of Presidents 

might feel that way. But it is all about 

separation of powers and sharing power 

and allowing this body to have a say. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

The Acting CHAIR. The question is 

on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. HASTINGS). 

The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it. 

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. 

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to 

clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Florida will be 

postponed. 

AMENDMENT NO. 2 OFFERED BY MR. JOHNSON OF

GEORGIA

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order 

to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 

part B of House Report 112–616. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of Congressman CONYERS on this amendment. 

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will 

designate the amendment. 

The text of the amendment is as follows: 

Page 3, line 18, strike ‘‘or (d)’’ and insert 

the following: ‘‘(d), or (e)’’. 

Page 5, insert after line 7 the following: 

(e) EXCEPTION FOR REGULATORY ACTIONS

PERTAINING TO PRIVACY.—An agency may 

take a significant regulatory action if the 

significant regulatory action pertains to privacy. 

Page 10, insert after line 13 the following 

and redesignate provisions accordingly: 

(c) PRIVACY EXCEPTION.—Section 202 shall 

not apply to a midnight rule if the midnight 

rule pertains to privacy. 

Page 19, insert after line 25 the following: 

(d) EXCEPTION.—This section shall not 

apply in the case of any consent decree or 

settlement agreement in an action to compel 

agency action pertaining to privacy. 

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to 

House Resolution 738, the gentleman 

from Georgia (Mr. JOHNSON) and a 

Member opposed each will control 5 

minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Georgia. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would amend the 

bill’s definition of ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ to exclude any regulation or guidance that is intended to 

protect the privacy of Americans. 

With the increasing opportunities for 

governmental and private organizations to obtain, maintain, and disseminate sensitive, private information on 

citizens, it is critical that we not prevent or delay the implementation of 

government regulations designed to 

protect the privacy of this information 

for several reasons. 

First, the government routinely collects almost every type of personal information about individuals and stores 

it in its databases. It may maintain 

this information for stated periods of 

time or permanently, and the government may share it with State agencies 

under certain circumstances. 

The concern, Mr. Chairman, is that 

such information has itself become a 

commodity with financial value, subject to abuse by those who seek to sell 

it for financial gain or for criminal 

purposes, such as identity theft. 

Unfortunately, several Federal agencies, such as the Veterans Administration, have lost the personal information of millions of Americans. For example, in 2006, the personal information for more than 26 million veterans 

and 2.2 million current military servicemembers was stolen from a Department of Veterans Affairs employee’s 

home after he had taken the data home 

without authorization. 

Second, thanks to the largely unfettered use of Social Security numbers 

and the availability of other personally 

identifiable information through technological advances, data security 

breaches appear to be occurring with 

greater frequency, in government and 

the private sector. In both of those arenas, we see these data breaches occurring. In turn, identity theft has swiftly 

evolved into one of the most prolific 

crimes in the United States. Unregulated, those who have it would seek to 

sell it and abuse it. And there are businesses which exist for the purpose of 

collecting as much personal information as possible about individuals so 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
July 25, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5253 

that they can put together profiles 

that they can then sell. 

Finally, the protection of Americans’ 

privacy is not a Democratic or Republican issue. Indeed, it is one of the few 

that those on opposite ends of the political spectrum have long embraced. 

b 1740 

Who can dispute the need to protect 

the privacy of patients’ health information? The Department of Health and 

Human Services has been tasked by 

Congress to implement new regulations 

to give patients more control over 

their own health records. In addition, 

HHS is proposing new rules to protect 

Americans from discrimination based 

on their genetic information. Yet, H.R. 

4078 would stop these regulations from 

going into effect because the bill has 

only limited exceptions that would be 

generally inapplicable to privacy protection regulations. 

Likewise, the bill’s waiver provisions 

are generally unworkable. My amendment corrects this shortcoming by including in the bill an exception for regulations that protect the privacy of 

Americans. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. 

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I yield 2 

minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. BONO MACK). 

Mrs. BONO MACK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

I rise in strong opposition to this 

amendment offered relating to privacy 

regulations, midnight privacy rules, 

and consent decrees. At a time when 

many of us are fighting attempts by 

the United Nations to regulate the 

Internet, lo and behold, some in Congress would have us do the exact opposite. The Conyers amendment would 

open the door for new, burdensome, and 

potentially job-killing regulations on 

the Internet. We don’t need the United 

States stifling Internet freedom any 

more than Russia, China, or India. 

As chairman of the subcommittee 

with primary jurisdiction over this 

issue, I’ve convened multiple hearings 

on online privacy and had countless 

conversations with stakeholders. And 

there is one thing that absolutely everyone agrees on: don’t mess up a great 

thing. 

E-commerce continues to flourish, 

creating jobs for millions of Americans 

and providing a tremendous boost to an 

otherwise stagnant economy. This 

amendment could put all of that success in jeopardy, stifling future innovation and growth. 

I’d like to remind my colleagues that 

an agency could still promulgate rules 

on privacy so long as they are not considered ‘‘significant’’ as defined in the 

bill. But what we don’t need is a system where dueling bureaucrats, the 

FTC and the FCC, impose conflicting 

and confusing rules for consumers. 

While the amendment sounds as if it 

is narrowly tailored to exempt privacy 

regulations from the interim prohibitions on new regulations and midnight 

rules, the term ‘‘privacy’’ is nonetheless undefined. That’s the very definition of ‘‘loophole’’ and opens the back 

door to government intervention and 

regulation. 

Soon, the House will consider my legislation telling the United Nations, 

Russia, China and others to keep their 

hands off the Internet. Today, let’s tell 

the United States that very same 

thing. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not designed 

to pave the way for any specific regulation. It is intended generally to prevent the delay in issuing regulations 

that will protect the privacy of our 

citizens. Privacy considerations should 

be at the forefront of our concerns, not 

treated as secondary inconvenience. 

Whether or not a specific issue is one 

ripe for regulation is properly considered as part of the regulatory process, 

which carefully considers all interests. 

To delay privacy regulations, as this 

bill would do, is to short-circuit the appropriately careful issuance of regulations needed to keep the personal behavior and personal information of our 

citizens safe from unwanted surveillance or exploitation. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 

time. 

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is 

recognized for 3 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I oppose 

this amendment, Mr. Chairman, because it is unnecessary. Titles I and II 

of the bill, the regulatory freeze and 

midnight rules titles, apply only to 

those regulations that are most costly 

to the economy, costing $100 million or 

more. Unfortunately, these are the 

kinds of rules that the Obama administration is issuing at a much faster rate 

than the previous administration. 

Under President Bush, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs’ biannual regulatory agenda on average 

reported 77 economically significant 

regulations in the proposed and final 

stages of the rulemaking process. By 

comparison, President Obama’s biannual average is 124. 

I would also note that President 

Obama’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not yet issued the 

spring 2012 regulatory agenda, although judging by the weather alone, I 

would say that spring is well behind us. 

This can only add to the regulatory 

uncertainty that discourages job creation. It is no wonder, then, that a Gallup Poll found that small 

businessowners cite complying with 

government regulations as their most 

important problem. The Federal Government needs to slow down on issuing 

the most costly regulations until the 

economy has a chance to recover or 

until this body approves regulations 

forwarded to it. Even if a regulation related to privacy met the $100 million 

threshold for titles I and II, I am confident that the bill’s reasonable waiver 

procedures would allow any necessary 

privacy regulation to move forward. 

There is no reason that regulations related to privacy should be exempt from 

the reforms to consent decree abuse 

contained in title III. For these reasons, I oppose this amendment and 

yield back the balance of my time. 

The Acting CHAIR. The question is 

on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. JOHNSON). 

The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. 

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to 

clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Georgia will be 

postponed. 

AMENDMENT NO. 3 OFFERED BY MR. KUCINICH

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order 

to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 

part B of House Report 112–616. 

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I have 

an amendment at the desk. 

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will 

designate the amendment. 

The text of the amendment is as follows: 

Page 3, line 18, strike ‘‘or (d)’’ and insert 

‘‘(d), or (e)’’. 

Page 5, after line 7, insert the following 

new subsection: 

(e) EXCEPTION FOR LIMITING OIL SPECULATION.—The prohibition in section 102(a) shall 

not apply to any significant regulatory action specifically aimed at limiting oil speculation. 

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to 

House Resolution 738, the gentleman 

from Ohio (Mr. KUCINICH) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Ohio. 

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer 

a sensible amendment to improve this 

bill. 

My amendment exempts from the 

moratorium any significant regulatory 

action that is specifically aimed at 

limiting speculation in the oil markets. Now, think of a gas pump this 

way: if you look at a gas pump, it’s got 

that nozzle like that—it is actually a 

holdup device. Every time our constituents pull up to the pump and say 

‘‘fill it up,’’ the oil companies are saying ‘‘stick ’em up.’’ That’s what’s happening. 

So, do we really want to tell these 

speculators in oil markets that we 

don’t have any interest in stopping 

their speculation? Do we really want 

this bill to do that? Because if we do 

that, what we are, in effect, causing is, 

we’re giving the oil companies carte 

blanche to steal from our constituents. 

I am sure my friends on the other side 

of the aisle don’t want that to happen, 

which is why I brought this amendment forward to help you. 

Today, financial speculators have 

overwhelmed commodity markets and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5254 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 25, 2012 

have driven out bona fide market participants who seek to reduce the risk of 

their investment by making offsetting 

investments. Excessive speculation in 

oil markets has come about as a result 

of the financialization of commodity 

markets. Financialization means that 

the prices of a commodity like oil are 

being set not by supply and demand 

but by financial concerns and by manipulation. Financialization has increased volatility, increased prices in 

the futures market and needlessly inflated the price all of our constituents 

pay at the pump—stick ’em up—and 

pay for products like heating oil. 

Now, let’s not forget that the financial crisis of 2008 was caused, in part, 

by commodity swaps, most of which 

are oil swaps. In July of 2008, traders 

pushed the price of a barrel of oil to a 

record $145. The wild price fluctuation 

was not caused simply by changes in 

supply or demand or by events in the 

Middle East. There was a worldwide recession in 2008. Weak economies usually mean weaker demand for oil. But 

thanks to Wall Street, that’s not the 

case. They find a way to make a profit 

at the expense of consumers and businesses. 

For decades, bona fide commercial 

hedgers made up about 70 percent of 

the commodities market activity, with 

speculators making up the other 30 percent. Now the speculators make up 

about 70 percent of the activity, and 

commercial hedgers are 30 percent. 

b 1750 

Do we really want to provide an opportunity for these speculators to 

cause our constituents to have to stick 

’em up again? 

Mr. CONYERS. Will the gentleman 

yield? 

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, could 

I ask how much time I have remaining? 

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman 

has 2 minutes and 45 seconds remaining. 

Mr. KUCINICH. Okay. I will yield 45 

seconds to my friend. 

Mr. CONYERS. I may not need that 

much time. 

But this is the most important provision in this bill—if we can persuade our 

colleagues to accept it—because we’ve 

all been victims of this rising gas price 

and then they miraculously come down 

a little bit, and then they start going 

back up again and then they come 

down. 

I congratulate the gentleman from 

Ohio (Mr. KUCINICH) for introducing the 

amendment, and I’m proud, along with 

him, to support consumers across this 

country. 

I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman. How much more time would 

you like? I thank you sincerely. 

The New England Fuel Institute published a list of 100 studies—100 studies, 

my friends—showing the impact of 

commodity speculation. This is entitled, ‘‘Evidence on the Negative Impact 

of Commodity Speculation by Academics, Analysts and Public Institutions.’’ These studies show the harms 

of unchecked financial speculation on 

all commodity markets, not just oil. 

And though my amendment is focused 

on retaining the power of our regulatory agencies to address oil speculation, the fact is that excessive speculation hampers the proper function of all 

derivative markets, not just energy 

markets. 

Today, the average price of gas in 

America is about $3.50 a gallon—higher 

than it ought to be—and that’s because 

of excessive speculation. 

[June 14, 2012] 

EVIDENCE ON THE NEGATIVE IMPACT OF COMMODITY SPECULATION BY ACADEMICS, ANALYSTS AND PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS

(Compiled by Markus Henn) 

1) Ada ̈mmer, Philipp/Bohl, Martin T./ 

Stephan, Patrick M. (University of Munster) 

(2011): Speculative Bubbles in Agricultural 

Prices: ‘‘The empirical evidence is favorable 

for speculative bubbles in the corn and wheat 

price over the last decade.’’ 

2) Agriculture and food policy centre 

(Texas University) (2008): The effects of ethanol on Texas food and feed: ‘‘Speculative 

fund activities in futures markets have led 

to more money in the markets and more volatility. Increased price volatility has encouraged wider trading limits. The end result has 

been the loss of the ability to use futures 

markets for price risk management due to 

the inability to finance margin requirements.’’ 

3) Algieri, Bernardina (Zentrum fu ̈ r 

Entwicklungsforschung Bonn) (2012): Price 

Volatility. Speculation and Excessive Speculation in Commodity Markets: Sheep or 

Shepherd Behaviour?: . . . this study shows 

that excessive speculation drives price volatility, and that often bilateral relationships 

exist between price volatility and speculation. (. . .) excessive speculation has driven 

price volatility for maize, rice, soybeans, and 

wheat in particular time frames, but the relationships are not always overlapping for 

all the considered commodities.’’ 

4) Aliber, Robert Z. (University of Chicago) 

(2008): Oil Rally Topped Dot-Com Craze in 

Speculators’ Mania (Bloomberg article): 

‘‘You’ve got speculation in a lot of commodities and that seems to be driving up the 

price. (. . .) Movements are dominated by 

momentum players who predict price 

changes from Wednesday to Friday on the 

basis of the price change from Monday to 

Wednesday.’’ 

5) Baffes, John (The World Bank)/Haniotis. 

Tassos (European Commission) (2010): Placing the 2006/08 Commodities Boom into Perspective. World Bank Research Working 

Paper 5371: ‘‘We conjecture that index fund 

activity (one type of ‘‘speculative’’ activity 

among the many that the literature refers 

to) played a key role during the 2008 price 

spike. Biofuels played some role too, but 

much less than initially thought. And we 

find no evidence that alleged stronger demand by emerging economies had any effect 

on world prices.’’ 

6) Bass, Hans H. (Univ. Bremen) (2011): 

Finanzms ̈rkte als Hungerverursacher? Studie 

fu ̈ r Welthungerhilfe e.V.: ‘‘Das Engagement 

der Kapitalanleger auf den Getreidema ̈ rkten 

fu ̈ hrte nach unseren Berechnungen in den 

Jahren 2007 bis 2009 im Jahresdurchschnitt 

zu einem Spielraum fu ̈ r 

Preisniveauerho ̈hungen von bis zu 15 

Prozent.’’ 

7) Basu, Parantap/Gavin. William T. (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Loius) (2011): What 

explains the Growth in Commodity Derivatives? ‘‘Banks argue that they need to use 

commodity derivatives to help customers 

manage risks. This may be true, but the recent experience in commodity futures did 

not reduce risks but exacerbated them just 

at the wrong time.’’ 

8) Berg, Ann (former CME trader and director, now FAO advisor) (2010): Agricultural 

Futures: Strengthening market signals for 

global price discover. Paper to the FAO’s 

Committee on Commodity Problems Extraordinary meeting: ‘‘. . . over 150 years of 

futures trading history demonstrates that 

position limits are necessary in commodities 

of finite supply to curb excessive speculation 

and hoarding.’’ 

9) Berg, Ann (former CME trader and director. now FAO advisor) (2011): The rise of 

commodity speculation: from villainous to 

venerable: ‘‘Structural changes in global 

commodity markets have greatly contributed to rising prices and increased price variability. These fundamental trends toward 

higher prices have been a key lure for increased speculative activity on the major futures exchanges.’’ 

10) Bicchetti, David/Maystre, Nicolas (2012) 

(UNCTAD): The synchronized and long-lasting structural change on commodity markets: evidence from high frequency data: ‘‘we 

document a synchronized structural break, 

characterized by a departure from zero, 

which starts in the course of 2008 and continues thereafter. This is consistent with the 

idea that recent financial innovations on 

commodity futures exchanges, in particular 

the high frequency trading activities and algorithm strategies have an impact on these 

correlations.’’ 

11) Bu ̈ yu ̈ ksahin, Bahattin (IEA)/Robe, 

Michel A. (American University) (2010): Speculators, Commodities and Cross-Market 

Linkages: ‘‘We then show that the correlations between the returns on investable commodity and equity indices increase amid 

greater participation by speculators generally and hedge funds especially.’’ 

12) Chevalier, Jean-Marie (ed.) (Ministe`re 

de l’Economie. de l’Industrie et de l’Emoloi) 

(2010): RaDDOrt du groupe de travail sur la 

volatilite ́ des prix du pe ́trole: ‘‘On peut 

raisonnablement avancer en conclusion que 

le jeu de certains acteurs financiers a pu amplifier les mouvements a` la hausse ou a` la 

baisse des cours, augmentant a` volatilite ́

naturelle des prix du pe ́trole...’’ 

13) Cooke, Bryce/Robles. Miguel (IFPRI) 

(2009): Recent Food Prices Movements. A 

Time Series Analysis: ‘‘Overall, our empirical analysis mainly provides evidence that 

financial activity in futures markets and 

proxies for speculation can help explain the 

observed change in food prices; any other explanation is not well supported by our time 

series analysis.’’ 

14) Cooper, Marc (Consumer Federation of 

America) (2011): Excessive Speculation and 

Oil Price Shock Recessions: A Case of Wall 

Street ‘‘De ́ja` vu all over again’’: ‘‘the paper 

shows that excessive speculation, not market fundamentals caused the spike in oil 

prices. The movement of trading and prices 

in the three years since the speculative bubble in oil burst in 2008 provides even stronger 

evidence that excessive speculation is a 

major problem that afflicts the oil market 

and the economy.’’ 

15) Deutsche Bank Research (2009): Do 

speculators drive crude oil prices? Dispersion 

in beliefs as price determinants. Research 

Notes 32: ‘‘The econometric estimates can reject the null hypotheses that the dispersion 

in beliefs of speculators has no influence on 

the crude oil price and its volatility. Both 

the Granger causality tests and the distributed lag models, which also include lagged 

regressors that measure the dispersion in beliefs of speculators, confirm moreover the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
July 25, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5255 

role of speculation as a precursor to price 

movements.’’ 

16) Dicker, Dan (former NYMEX trader) 

(2011): ‘‘I wrote Oil’s Endless Bid to show how 

the treatment of oil as a stock by investors, 

far more than any number of globally significant competing factors, causes the dramatically higher prices that we’ve seen in recent 

years. I’ve witnessed seismic changes to the 

oil markets during my many years as a trader, and it’s the everyday consumer who 

shoulders the burden.’’ 

17) Du, Xiaodong/Yu, Cindy L./Hayes. 

Dermott J. (Iowa State University) (2009). 

Speculation and Volatility Spillover in the 

Crude Oil and Agricultural Commodity Markets: A Bayesian. 

Evidence on the Negative Impact of Commodity Speculation by Academics, Analysts 

and Public Institutions—14 June 2012— 

markus.henn@weed-online.org Analysis. 

Working Paper No. 09–WP 491, 2009: ‘‘Speculation, scalping, and petroleum inventories 

are found to be important in explaining oil 

price variation.’’ 

18) Eckaus. R.S. (MIT) (2008): The Oil Price 

Really Is A Speculative Bubble. ‘‘Since there 

is no reason based on current and expected 

supply and demand that justifies the current 

price of oil, what is left? The oil price is a 

speculative bubble.’’ 

19) Einloth. James T. (FDIC) (2009): Speculation and Recent Volatility in the Price of 

Oil: ‘‘The paper finds the evidence inconsistent with speculation having played a 

major role in the rise of price to $100 per barrel in March 2008. However, the evidence suggests that speculation did play a role in its 

subsequent rise to $140.’’ 

20) Evans, Tim (Citigroup energy analyst) 

(2008): The Official Demise of the Oil Bubble 

(Wall Street Article): ‘‘This is a market that 

is basically returning to the price level of a 

year ago which it arguably should never 

have left. (...) We pumped up a big bubble, expanded it to an impressive dimension, and 

now it is popped and we have bubble gum in 

our hair.’’ 

21) Frenk, David (Better Markets Inc.) 

(2010): Review of Irwin and Sanders 2010 

OECD report: 1) The statistical methods applied are completely inappropriate for the 

data used. 2) The study is contradicted by 

the findings of other studies that apply more 

appropriate statistical methods to the same 

data. 3) The overall analysis is superficial 

and easily refuted by looking at some basic 

facts.’’ 

22) Frenk, David/Turbeville, Wallace C. 

(Better Markets Inc.) (2011): Commodity 

Index Traders and the Boom/Bust Cycle in 

Commodities Prices: ‘‘We find strong evidence that the CIT Roll Cycle systematically 

distorts forward commodities futures price 

curves towards a contango state, which is 

likely to contribute to speculative ‘‘boom/ 

bust’’ cycles by changing the incentives of 

producers and consumers of storable commodities, and also by sending misleading and 

non-fundamental, price signals to the market.’’ 

23) Gheit, Fadel/Katzenberg, Daniel (2008) 

(Oppenheimer & Co.): Surviving lower oil 

prices: ‘‘The investment banks that hyped 

oil prices using voodoo economics have suddenly reversed their position and now expect 

much lower oil prices. They helped cause excessive speculation, create the oil bubble, 

and contributed to the global financial crisis. They have changed their tune in exchange for a government bailout, not because of changes in market fundamentals.’’ 

24) Gilbert, Christopher (Trento University) (2010): How to understand high food 

prices: ‘‘By investing across the entire range 

of commodity futures, index-based investors 

appear to have inflated food commodity 

prices.’’ 

25) Gilbert, Christopher (Trento University) (2010): Speculative Influences on Commodity Futures Prices: ‘‘The results ... indicate that index-based investment in commodity futures may have been responsible 

for a significant and bubblelike increase of 

energy and non-ferrous metals prices, although the estimated impact on agricultural 

prices is smaller.’’ 

26) Ghosh, Jayati (Jawaharlal Nehru University) (2010): Commodity speculation and 

the food crisis: ‘‘Thus international commodity markets increasingly began to develop many of the features of financial markets, in that they became prone to information asymmetries and associated tendencies 

to be led by a small number of large players. 

Far from being ‘efficient markets’ in the 

sense hoped for by mainstream theory, they 

allowed for inherently ‘wrong’ signalling devices to become very effective in determining and manipulating market behaviour. 

The result was the excessive price volatility 

that has been displayed by important commodities over the recent period—not only 

the food grains and crops mentioned here, 

but also minerals and oil.’’ 

27) Global Hunger Index 2011 (IFPRI, 

Welthungerhilfe, Concern Worldwide) (2011): 

‘‘Price increases and volatility have arisen 

for three main reasons: increasing use of 

food crops for biofuels, extreme weather 

events and climate change, and increased 

volume of trading in commodity futures 

markets.’’ 

28) Goldman Sachs (2011): Global Energy 

Weekly March 2011: ‘‘We estimate that each 

million barrels of net speculative length 

tends to add 8–10 cents to the price of a barrel of oil.’’ 

29) Greenberger, Michael (University of 

Maryland) (2010): The Relationship of Unregulated Excessive Speculation to Oil Market Price Volatility. Paper for the International Energy Forum: ‘‘When speculators 

make up too large a share of the futures 

market, they have the potential to upset the 

healthy tension between consumers and producers and resulting adherence of prices to 

market fundamentals. The resulting volatility makes it more difficult for commercial 

consumers and producers to successfully 

hedge risk, because prices do not reflect 

market fundamentals, and so they abandon 

the futures market and risk shifting—thereby further destabilizing the price discovery 

influence of these markets.’’ 

30) Hamilton, James (Department of Economics, UC San Diego) (2009) Causes and 

Consequences of the Oil Shock of 2007–08: 

‘‘With hindsight, it is hard to deny that the 

price rose too high in July 2008, and that this 

miscalculation was influenced in part by the 

flow of investment dollars into commodity 

futures contracts.’’ 

31) Henderson, Brian J. (George Washington University)/Pearson, Neil D./Wang, Li 

(2012) (University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign): New Evidence on the 

Financialization of Commodity Markets: 

‘‘this paper examines the price impact of 

commodity investments on the commodities 

futures markets using a novel dataset of 

Commodity-Linked Notes (CLNs). CLN 

issuers hedge their liabilities by taking long 

positions in the underlying commodity futures on the pricing dates. These hedging 

trades are plausibly exogenous to the contemporaneous and subsequent price movements, allowing us to identify the price impact of the hedging trades. We find that 

these hedging trades cause significant price 

changes in the underlying futures markets, 

and therefore provide direct evidence of the 

impact of ‘‘financial’’ trades on commodity 

futures prices.’’ 

32) House of Commons Select Committee 

on Science & Technology of the United Kingdom (2011). ‘‘While the debate on the relative 

importance of the multiple factors influencing commodities prices is still open, it is 

clear that price movements across different 

commodity markets have become more 

closely related and that commodities markets have become more closely linked to financial markets.’’ 

33) Hunt, Simon (Simon Hunt Strategic 

Services) (2011): ‘‘Slowly, the truth on 

whether the global copper market is really 

tight is coming out. It illustrates just how 

large an involvement the financial institutions have become to the copper industry. It 

shows, too, that by throwing money at a 

market, prices can be driven higher. In the 

process, however, the delicate balance between supply and the industry’s requirements for a basic material used to produce a 

range of essential products is destroyed. In 

short, copper is becoming a financial asset in 

place of its historic role as an industrial 

metal.’’ 

34) Inamura, Yasunari/Kimata, Tomonori/ 

Takeshi, Kimura/Muto, Takashi (Bank of 

Japan) (2011): Recent Surge in Global Commodity Prices—Impact of financialization of 

commodities and globally accommodative 

monetary conditions. Bank of Japan Review 

March 2011: ‘‘While the strong increase in 

commodity prices has been driven by global 

economic growth propelled by emerging 

economies, speculative investment flows 

into commodity markets have amplified the 

intensity of the price surge. (...) global commodity markets have become more sensitive 

to portfolio rebalancing by financial investors, which has made commodity markets 

more correlated with other asset markets, 

including major equity markets.’’ 

35) institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (2009): Betting Against Food Security: 

Futures Market Speculation. Trade and 

Global Governance Programme Paper: ‘‘A 

large share of the commodity exchange price 

volatility resides not so much in supply and 

demand of the commodity traded as in the 

fund formulas for buying and selling the bundled futures contracts.’’ 

36) International Monetary Fund (2008): Regional Economic Outlook: Middle East and 

Central Asia: ‘‘In summary, it appears that 

speculation has played a significant role in 

the run-up in oil prices as the U.S. dollar has 

weakened and investors have looked for a 

hedge in oil futures (and gold).’’ 

37) Jalali-Naini. Ali bin Ibrahim (Economic 

Research Forum Cairo) (2009): The Impact of 

Financial Markets on the Price of Oil and 

Volatility: Developments since 2007: ‘‘Causality tests indicate that changes in speculative positions—resulting from the entry and 

exit of non-commercials—can generate price 

volatility. When used in conjunction with a 

number of other variables, including commercial stocks and product prices to explain 

variations in the price of oil, the speculative 

length in the futures market has a positive 

and significant coefficient.’’ 

38) Jickling, Mark/Austin, Andrew D. (Congressional Research Service) (2011): Hedge 

Funds Speculation and Oil Prices: ‘‘A statistically significant correlation is evident between changes in positions held by ‘‘money 

managers’’ (a category of speculators that 

includes hedge funds) and the price of oil. In 

other words, during weeks when money managers have been net buyers of oil futures and 

options (or increased the size of their long 

positions), the price has tended to rise. Price 

falls, conversely, have tended to coincide 

with reductions in money managers’ long positions.’’ 

39) Jouyet, Jean-Pierre (President de 

l’Autorite des marches financiers)/de 

Boissieu, Christian (President du Conseil 

d’analyse economique)/Guillon. Serge 

(Controleur general economigue et financier) 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5256 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 25, 2012 

(2010): Rapport d’e ́tape—Preve ́nir et ge ́rer 

l’instabilite ́ des marche ́s agricoles: ‘‘Les 

marche ́s agricoles sont confrontes a une 

mondialisation et a une financiarisation qui 

influencent leur fonctionnement. La 

volatilite ́ naturelles des prix qui caracte ́rise 

ces marches est amplifie ́e par de nouveaux 

facteurs et notamment par une speculation 

excessive.’’ 

40) Juvenal, Luciana/Ivan, Petrella (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis) (2011): Speculation in the Oil Market: ‘‘We find that the 

increase in oil prices in the last decade is 

mainly due to the strength of global demand, 

consistent with previous studies. However, 

financial speculation significantly contributed to the oil price increase between 2004 

and 2008.’’ 

41) Kaufmann, Robert (Boston University) 

(2010): The role of market fundamentals and 

speculation in recent price changes for crude 

oil: ‘‘I hypothesize that the price spike and 

collapse of 2007–2008 are driven by both 

changes in both market fundamentals and 

speculative pressures.’’ 

42) Kawamoto, Takuji/Kimura, Takeshi/ 

Morishita, Kentaro/Higashi, Masato (Bank of 

Japan (2011): What has caused the surge in 

global commodity prices and strengthened 

cross-market linkage?: ‘‘Moreover, we find 

quantitative evidence that an increase in 

cross-market linkage between commodity 

and stock markets was caused by the markets’ increased comovements due to large 

fluctuations in the global economy during 

the financial crisis as well as by the 

‘‘financialization of commodities,’’ that is, 

financial investors are increasingly treating 

commodities as an investment asset class.’’ 

43) Kemp, John (Reuters) (2008): Crisis remakes the commodity business: ‘‘It does not 

alter the fact most of the upsurge in futures 

and options turnover on commodity exchanges and in OTC markets over the last 

five years has come from investment-related 

rather than trade-related business.’’ 

44) Khan, Mohsin S. (Petersen Institute) 

(2009): The 2008 Oil Price ‘‘Bubble’’: ‘‘While 

market fundamentals obviously played a 

role in the general run-up in the oil prices 

from 2003 on, it is fair to conclude by looking 

at a variety of indicators that speculation 

drove an oil price bubble in the first half of 

2008. Absent speculative activities, the oil 

price would probably have been in the $80 to 

$90 a barrel range.’’ 

45) Korzenik, Jeffrey (CIO. Caturano 

Wealth Management) (2009): Fundamental 

Misconceptions in the Speculation Debate: 

‘‘‘Overspeculation’ or ‘excessive speculation’ 

exists when speculators become primary 

drivers of price. When this happens, commodities are no longer efficiently allocated— 

if prices are driven below the point where 

commercial supply and demand meet, shortages result.’’ 

46) Krugman, Paul (Columbia University) 

(2009): Oil speculation: ‘‘Last year I was 

skeptical about claims that speculation was 

central to the price rise, because what I considered the essential signature of a speculative price rise . . . just wasn’t showing. This 

time, however, oil inventories are bulging, 

with huge amounts held in offshore tankers 

as well as in conventional storage. So this 

time there’s no question: speculation has 

been driving prices up.’’ 

47) Lagi, Marco/Bar-Yam, Yavni/Bertrand, 

Karla Z./Bar-Yam, Yaneer (New England 

Complex Systems Insitute, Cambridge MA) 

(2011): The Food Crises A Quantitative Model 

of Food Prices Including Speculators and 

Ethanol Conversion: ‘‘The two sharp peaks 

in 2007/2008 and 2010/2011 are specifically due 

to investor speculation, while an underlying 

upward trend is due to increasing demand 

from ethanol conversion. The model includes 

investor trend following as well as shifting 

between commodities, equities and bonds to 

take advantage of increased expected returns. Claims that speculators cannot influence grain prices are shown to be invalid by 

direct analysis of price setting practices of 

granaries.’’ and the UPDATE from February 

2012: ‘‘we extend the food prices model to 

January 2012, without modifying the model 

but simply continuing its dynamics. The 

agreement is still precise, validating both 

the descriptive and predictive abilities of the 

analysis.’’ 

48) Lines, Thomas (commodity consultant) 

(2010): Speculation in food commodity markets: ‘‘These are the main problems that are 

caused by long-only index trading: It pushes 

prices up, irrespective of the market situation. It disrupts the rolling over of futures 

contracts when the nearest month expires.’’ 

49) Lombardi, Marco J./Van Robays, Ine 

(ECB) (2011): Do financial investors 

destablize the oil price?: ‘‘We find that financial investors in the futures market can destabilize oil spot prices, although only in the 

short run. Moreover, financial activity appears to have exacerbated the volatility in 

the oil market over the past decade, particularly in 2007–2008. However, shocks to oil demand and supply remain the main drivers of 

oil price swings.’’ 

50) Luciani, Giacomo (Gulf Research Center Foundation) (2009): From Price Taker to 

Price Maker? Saudi Arabia and the World Oil 

Market: ‘‘The inflow of liquidity, the increasing role played by the futures market 

(paper barrels) over the spot (wet barrels), 

and the proliferation of derivatives which encourage betting on price changes rather than 

on the absolute level of prices all contribute 

to worsen the situation, amplifying price oscillations.’’ 

51) Masters, Michael W. (Masters Capital) 

(2009): Testimony before the Commodities 

Futures Trading Commission: ‘‘In summary, 

passive investors compete with physical 

commodity consumers and make it much 

more difficult for them to hedge. (. . .) They 

provide no benefits whatsoever to the markets because they consume liquidity. And 

most importantly, they drive up commodity 

prices, which hurts everybody on the planet.’’ 

52) Masters, Michael W. (Masters Capital)/ 

White, Adam K. (White Knight Research) 

(2008): How institutional investors are driving up food and energy prices: ‘‘Unfortunately, this price discovery function of the 

commodities futures markets is breaking 

down. With the advent of financial futures, 

the important distinctions between commodities futures and financial futures were lost 

to regulators. Excessive speculation gradually became synonymous with manipulation, 

and speculative position limits were raised 

or effectively eliminated because they were 

not deemed necessary to prevent manipulation.’’ 

53) Mayer, Jo ̈ rg (2009): The Growing Interdependence between Financial and Commodity Markets. UNCTAD Discussion Paper 

195: ‘‘The increasing importance of financial 

investment in commodity trading appears to 

have caused commodity futures exchanges to 

function in such a way that prices may deviate, at least in the short run, quite far from 

levels that would reliably reflect fundamental supply and demand factors. Financial 

investment weakens the traditional mechanisms that would prevent prices from moving away from levels determined by fundamental supply and demand factors—efficient 

absorption of information and physical adjustment of markets. This weakening increases the proneness of commodity prices to 

overshooting and heightens the risk of speculative bubbles occurring.’’ 

54) Medlock, Kenneth B./Jaffe, Amy M. 

(Rice University) (2009): Who is in the Oil Futures Market and How Has It Changed?: ‘‘. . . 

trading strategies of some financial players 

in oil appears to be influencing the correlation between the value of the U.S. dollar and 

the price of oil. (. . .) We also find that the 

correlation between movements in oil prices 

and the value of the dollar against the tradeweighted index of the currencies of foreign 

countries has increased to 0.82 (a significant 

measure) for the period between 2001 and the 

present day, compared to a previously insignificant correlation of only 0.08 between 1986 

and 2000.’’ 

55) Miller, Marcus (University of Warwick) 

(2011) Interview with Al-Jazeera. ‘‘A disturbing amount of price increases, I fear, is 

being driven by speculative activity. Bets 

[on future price rises or declines] can become 

self-fulfilling if you are big enough to affect 

the market.’’ 

56) Morse, E. (former Lehman Brothers 

chief energy economist) (2008): Oil Dotcom. 

Research Note: ‘‘Fundamental changes cannot explain sudden, severe price or curve 

movements. (. . .) Our conclusion from this 

study is that we are seeing the classic ingredients of an asset bubble.’’ 

57) Mou, Yiqun (Columbia University) 

(2010): Limits to Arbitrage and Commodity 

Index Investment: Frontrunning the Goldman Roll: ‘‘This paper focuses on the unique 

rolling activity of commodity index investors in the commodity futures markets and 

shows that the price impact due to this rolling activity is both statistically and economically significant.’’ 

58) Mu ̈ller, Dirk (Finanzethos) (2011): 

Unschuldsmythen, Wie die 

Nahrungsmittelspekulation den Hunger 

anheizt: ‘‘Wie die folgende Analyse zeigt, ist 

der zentrale Einfluss der Spekulation auf die 

Preisentwicklung bei Grundnahrungsmittel 

in Entwicklungsla ̈ndern kaum zu leugnen.’’ 

59) Naylor, Rosamund L./Falcon. Walter P. 

(Stanford) (2010). Food Security in an Era of 

Economic Volatility: ‘‘Uncertainty surrounding exchange rates and macro policies 

added to price misperceptions, as did flurries 

of speculative activity in organized futures 

markets. Events since 2005—including the 

most recent period of price variability in 

2010—underscore the point that uncertainty 

and expectations can be as important as or 

even more important than actual changes in 

grain demand and supply in driving price 

variability.’’ 

60) Newell, J. (Probability Analytics Research) (2008): Commodity Speculation’s 

‘‘Smoking Gun’’: ‘‘Real market forces in 

these diverse markets are largely independent of one another, and therefore price 

changes should be essentially uncorrelated. 

This was clearly true historically; from 1984 

through 1999 average correlation between all 

commodities was only 7%. In the last 12 

months this average rose to 64%. Correlation 

with the GSCI was 23% historically, and rose 

to 76% in the last year. Index speculation has 

swamped real market forces.’’ 

61) Nissanke, Machiko (University of London) (2010): Commodity Markets and Excess 

Volatility. Sources and Strategies to Reduce 

Adverse Development Impacts. Paper presented at the CFC Conference in Brussels December 2010: ‘‘It can be argued that asset 

prices, including commodity prices, traded 

globally are largely influenced by market liquidity cycles in global finance. From this 

particular perspective, we can have a plausible narrative of the recent episode of commodity pricey cycle. (. . .) Clearly, trading 

activities in world commodity markets have 

undergone some fundamental change, as the 

links between activities in commodity and 

financial markets has further intensified.’’ 

62) Ortiz, Isabel/Chai, Jingqaing/Cummins. 

Matthew (2011): Escalating Food Prices—the 

threat to poor households and policies to 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
July 25, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5257 

safeguard a Recovery for All. Unicef Social 

and Economic working paper. ‘‘Such activities [trading futures contracts for speculative gains] have contributed to excessive 

fluctuations in food commodity futures 

prices and distorted signals for expected 

prices. By doing to, speculation impedes 

practical hedging strategies and imposes significant unanticipated costs and undue burden on food farmers, processors and distributors, potentially contributing to unwarranted changes in local food costs.’’ 

63) Petzel, Todd E. (Offit Capital Advisors) 

(2009): Testimony before the CFTC: ‘‘I believe 

these investors in aggregate have had a material impact on price levels, price spreads 

and the level of inventories being held.’’ 

64) Phillips, Peter C. B. (Yale University)/ 

Yu, Jun (Singapore University) (2010): Dating 

the Timeline of Financial Bubbles During 

the Subprime Crisis: ‘‘a bubble first emerged 

in the equity market during mid–1995 lasting 

to the end of 2000, followed by a bubble in the 

real estate market between September 2000 

and June 2007 and in the mortgage market 

between August 2005 and July 2007. After the 

subprime crisis erupted, the phenomenon migrated selectively into the commodity market and the foreign exchange market, creating bubbles which subsequently burst at 

the end of 2008, just as the effects on the real 

economy and economic growth became manifest.’’ 

65) Pollin, Robert/Heintz. James (University of Massachusetts)(2011): How Wall Street 

Speculation is Driving Up Gasoline Prices 

Today: ‘‘A major additional factor is the 

rapid growth in large-scale speculative trading around oil prices through the oil commodities futures market. Indeed, we estimate that, without the influence of largescale speculative trading on oil in the commodities futures market, the average price 

of gasoline at the pump in May would have 

been $3.13 rather than $3.96.’’ 

66) Ray, Darryl E/Schaffer, Harwood D. 

(University of Tennessee) (2010): Index funds 

and the 2006–2008 run-up in agricultural commodity prices: ‘‘the fundamentals and/or expectations in the energy and mineral markets rein supreme—grains are along for the 

ride with little-to-no regard to what is happening in the grain sector. Worries during 

the period about the availability of oil drove 

up the price of crude, which caused index 

funds to rebalance their portfolios by making additional purchases of the other commodities to maintain the specified balance. 

Since the resulting price increases in agricultural commodities had virtually nothing 

to do with their market conditions, the 

record level of activity in the futures market 

by index funds would seem to make index 

funds a logical source of possible price overshooting.’’ 

67) Robles, Miguel/Torero, Maximo/Braun. 

Joachim von (IFPRI) (2009): When speculation matters. IFPRI Issue Brief 57: ‘‘Changes 

in supply and demand fundamentals cannot 

fully explain the recent drastic increase in 

food prices. Rising expectations, speculation, 

hoarding, and hysteria also played a role in 

the increasing level and volatility of food 

prices.’’ 

68) Roubini, Nouriel (New York University) 

(2009): The risk of a double-dip recession is 

rising (Financial Times Article): ‘‘Another 

reason to fear a double-dip recession is that 

oil, energy and food prices are now rising 

faster than economic fundamentals warrant, 

and could be driven higher by excessive liquidity chasing assets and by speculative demand.’’ 

69) Sachs, Jeffrey D. (Columbia University) 

(2008): Corn Futures Spark Riots as Speculators Take Trading to Limit (Bloomberg article): ‘‘The fact that prices soared and then 

they came down so much really does suggest 

that there was a speculative element to it.’’ 

70) Schulmeister, Stephan (Vienna University) (2009): Trading Practices and Price Dynamics in Commodity Markets. Study commissioned by the Austrian Federal Ministry 

of Finance and the Austrian Federal Ministry of Economics and Labour: ‘‘Based on 

the ‘‘bullishness’’ in commodity derivatives 

markets, short-term oriented speculators reacted much stronger to news in line with the 

expectation of rising prices than to news 

which contradicted the ‘‘market mood’’. 

Hence, they put more money into long positions than into short positions and held long 

positions longer than short positions. Due to 

this trading behavior, upward commodity 

price runs lasted longer in recent years than 

downward runs causing prices to rise in a 

stepwise process. Commodity price runs were 

lengthened by the use of trend-following 

trading systems of technical analysis. These 

systems try to exploit price runs by producing buy (sell) signals in the early stage of 

an upward (downward) run. The aggregate 

trading signals then feed back upon commodity prices.’’ 

71) Schumann, Harald (2011): Die 

Hungermacher. Wie Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs & Co. auf Kosten der Armsten 

mit Lebensmitteln spekulieren. ‘‘Die 

verantwortlichen Manager der 

Finanzbranche argumentieren, es gebe keine 

Beweise dafu ̈ r, dass Finanzinvestoren auf den 

Rohstoffma ̈ rkten einen mehr als nur 

kurzfristigen Einfluss auf das Preisniveau 

haben. Diese Behauptung ist nicht haltbar. 

Fu ̈ r den Roho ̈lmarkt 1st dieser 

Zusammenhang sogar unter den Fachleuten 

der Finanzbranche selbst nicht mehr 

umstritten.’’ 

72) Schutter, Olivier de (UN Special 

Rapporteur on the Right to Food) (2010): 

Food commodities speculation and food price 

crises: Regulation to reduce the risks of financial volatility: ‘‘The global food price crisis that occurred between 2007 and 2008, and 

which affects many developing countries to 

this day, had a number of causes. The initial 

causes related to market fundamentals, including the supply and demand for food commodities, transportation and storage costs, 

and an increase in the price of agricultural 

inputs. However, a significant portion of the 

increases in price and volatility of essential 

food commodities can only be explained by 

the emergence of a speculative bubble.’’ 

73) Shiller, Robert J. (Yale University) 

(2008): Commodity Prices Tumble (New York 

Times article): ‘‘Commodities followed the 

euphoria cycle that we had along with housing.’’ 

74) Silvennoinen Annastiina (Queensland 

University) / Thorp, Susan (Sydney University) (2010): Financialization crisis and commodity correlation dynamics: We observe 

higher and more variable correlations between commodity futures and stock returns 

from mid-sample, with many series showing 

a structural break in the conditional correlation processes from the late 1990s.’’ 

75) Singleton, Kenneth J. (Stanford University) (2010): The 2008 Boom/Bust in Oil Prices: 

‘‘In my view, while spot-market supply and 

demand pressures were influential factors in 

the behavior of oil prices, so were participation in oil futures markets by hedge funds, 

long-term passive investors, and other traders in energy derivatives.’’ 

76) Singleton, Kenneth J. (Stanford University) (2011): Investor Flows And The 2008 

Boom/Bust in Oil Prices: ‘‘I present new evidence that there was an economically and 

statistically significant effect of investor 

flows on futures prices . . . The intermediate-term growth rates of index positions 

and managed-money spread positions had the 

largest impacts on futures prices.’’ 

77) Soros, George (2008): Interview with 

Stem: ‘‘Speculators create the bubble that 

lies above everything. Their expectations, 

their gambling on futures help drive up 

prices, and their business distorts prices, 

which is especially true for commodities. It 

is like hoarding food in the midst of a famine, only to make profits on rising prices. 

That should not be possible.’’ 

78) Tanaka, Nobuo (head International Energy Agency) (2009): IEA says speculation 

amplifying oil prices moves (Reuters article): ‘‘Our analysis shows that the fundamentals are deciding the direction of the price 

while these funds or speculations . . . are 

amplifying the movement.’’ 

79) Tang, Ke (Princeton University) / 

Xiong. Wei (Renmin University) (2011): Index 

Investment and The Financialization of 

Commodities. ‘‘This paper finds that concurrent with the rapid growing index investment in commodities markets since early 

2000s, futures prices of different commodities 

in the U.S. became increasingly correlated 

with each other and this trend was significantly more pronounced for commodities in 

the two popular GSCI and DJUBS commodity indices. This finding reflects a 

financialization process of commodities markets and helps explain the synchronized 

price boom and bust of a broad set of seemingly unrelated commodities in the U.S. in 

2006–2008. In contrast, such commodity price 

comovements were absent in China, which 

refutes growing commodity demands from 

emerging economies as the driver.’’ 

80) Timmer, C. Peter (FAO) (2009): Peter 

Timmer: Peter Timmer: Did Speculation Affect World Rice Prices? ‘‘Speculative money 

seems to surge in and out of commodity markets, strongly linking financial variables 

with commodity prices during some time periods. But these periods are often short and 

the relationships disappear entirely for long 

periods of time.’’ 

81) Trostle, Ronald (2008): Global Agricultural Supply and Demand: Factors Contributing to the Recent Increase in Food Commodity Prices. USDA Economic Research 

Service: ‘‘It is unclear to what extent the effect these new investor interests had on 

prices and the underlying supply and demand 

relationships for agricultural products. However, computerized trend-following trading 

practices employed by many of these funds 

may have increased the short-term volatility 

of agricultural prices.’’ 

82) Tudor Jones, Paul (Tudor Investment 

Corporation) (2010): Price Limits: A Return 

to Patience and Rationality in U.S. Markets. 

Speech to the CME Global Financial Leadership Conference. October 18, 2010: ‘‘Every exchange traded instrument including all securities, futures, options and any other form of 

derivatives should have some form of a price 

limit. And this is all the more urgently needed now that electronic execution dominates 

trading.’’ 

83) Turbeville, Wallace C. (former Goldman 

Sachs vice-president) Critique of Irwin and 

Sanders 2010 OECD report (2010): ‘‘The issue 

is so important that scepticism of conventional beliefs, not faith in the perfection of 

free markets, is appropriate for any study of 

the issue.’’ 

84) United Nations Conference on Trade 

and Development (UNCTAD) (2009): Trade 

and Development Report. Chapter II—The 

Financialization of Commodity Markets: 

‘‘The financialization of commodity futures 

trading has made commodity markets even 

more prone to behavioural overshooting. 

There are an increasing number of market 

participants, sometimes with very large positions, that do not trade based on fundamental supply and demand relationships in 

commodity markets, but, who nonetheless, 

influence commodity price developments.’’ 

85) United Nations Conference on Trade 

and Development (UNCTAD) (2009): The global economic crisis: Systemic failures and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5258 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 25, 2012 

multilateral remedies. ‘‘The evidence to support the view that the recent wide fluctuations of commodity prices have been driven 

by the financialization of commodity markets far beyond the equilibrium prices is 

credible. Various studies find that financial 

investors have accelerated and amplified 

price movements at least for some commodities and some periods of time. (. . .) The 

strongest evidence is found in the high correlation between commodity prices and the 

prices on other markets that are clearly 

dominated by speculative activity.’’ 

86) United Nations Conference on Trade 

and Development (UNCTAD) (2011): Price 

Formation in Financialized Commodity Markets: the Role of Information. ‘‘Due to the 

increased participation of financial players 

in those markets, the nature of information 

that drives commodity price formation has 

changed. Contrary to the assumptions of the 

efficient market hypothesis (EMH), the majority of market participants do not base 

their trading decisions purely on the fundamentals of supply and demand; they also 

consider aspects which are related to other 

markets or to portfolio diversification. This 

introduces spurious price signals to the market.’’ 

87) United Nations Commission of Experts 

on Reforms of the International and Monetary System (2009): Reoort: ‘‘In the period 

before the outbreak of the crisis, inflation 

spread from financial asset prices to petroleum, food, and other commodities, partly as 

a result of their becoming financial asset 

classes subject to financial investment and 

speculation.’’ 

88) United Nations Food and Agricultural 

Organisation (FAO) (2010): Final report of 

the committee on commodity problems: Extraordinary joint intersessional meeting of 

the intergovernmental group (IGG) on grains 

and the intergovernmental group on rice: 

‘‘Unexpected crop failure in some major exporting countries followed by national responses and speculative behaviour rather 

than global market fundamentals, have been 

amongst the main factors behind the recent 

escalation of world prices and the prevailing 

high price volatility.’’ 

89) United Nations Food and Agricultural 

Organisation (FAO) (2010). Price Volatility in 

Agricultural Markets. Economic and Social 

Perspectives Policy Brief 12. December 2010. 

‘‘Financial firms are progressively investing 

in commodity derivatives as a portfolio 

hedge since returns in the commodity sector 

seem uncorrelated with returns to other assets. While this ‘financialisation of commodities’ is generally not viewed as the source of 

price turbulence, evidence suggests that 

trading in futures markets may have amplified volatility in the short term. 

90) United Nations Food and Agricultural 

Organisation (FAO), IFAD, IMF, OECD, 

UNCTAD, WFP. The World Bank, The WTO, 

IFPRI, UN HLTF (2011): Price Volatility in 

Food and Agricultural Markets: Policy Responses: ‘‘While analysts argue about whether financial speculation has been a major 

factor, most agree that increased participation by non-commercial actors such as index 

funds, swap dealers and money managers in 

financial markets probably acted to amplify 

short term price swings and could have contributed to the formation of price bubbles in 

some situations.’’ 

91) United Nations High Level Task Force 

on the global food security crisis (2008): ‘‘The 

impact of speculation in futures and commodity markets on food prices has also highlighted the importance of appropriate regulatory measures to ensure that on-going integration of financial markets provides the 

basis for increased benefits, rather than 

risks, for the poor.’’ 

92) United States Senate, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (2007): Excessive Speculation in the Natural Gas Market: 

‘‘Amaranth’s 2006 positions in the natural 

gas market constituted excessive speculation. (. . .) Purchasers of natural gas during 

the summer of 2006 for delivery in the following winter months paid inflated prices 

due to Amaranth’s speculative trading.’’ 

93) United States Senate, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (2009): Excessive Speculation in the Wheat Market ‘‘This 

Report concludes there is significant and 

persuasive evidence that one of the major 

reasons for the recent market problems is 

the unusually high level of speculation in 

the Chicago wheat futures market due to 

purchases of futures contracts by index traders offsetting sales of commodity index instruments.’’ 

94) United States Senate, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (2006): The Role 

of Market Speculation in Rising Oil and Gas 

Prices: ‘‘The large purchases of crude oil futures contracts by speculators have, in effect, created an additional demand for oil, 

driving up the price of oil to be delivered in 

the future in the same manner that additional demand for the immediate delivery of 

a physical barrel of oil drives up the price on 

the spot market.’’ 

95) Urbanchuk, John M. (Cardno ENTRIX) 

(2011): Speculation and the Commodity Markets: ‘‘A careful examination of activity by 

non-commercial and index traders (i.e. speculators) in the corn futures market in the 

context of supply and demand fundamentals 

strongly suggests that speculation is a major 

factor behind the sharp increase in both the 

level and volatility of corn prices this year.’’ 

96) Van der Molen, Maarten (University of 

Utrecht) (2009): Speculators invading the 

commodity markets: a case study of coffee: 

‘‘Various analyses were performed to investigate these effects [i.e. effects that index 

speculators have on the futures market]. The 

results indicate that index speculators frustrated the futures market in the period between 2005 and 2008. This conclusion is based 

on the following indications: fundamentals 

have a lower impact on the price, the volume 

of index speculators has increased and their 

ability to influence the futures market has 

increased.’’ 

97) Vansteenkiste, Isabel (ECB) (2011): 

What is driving oil price futures? Fundamentals versus Speculation: ‘‘We find that for 

the earlier part of our sample (up to 2004) 

that fundamentals have been the key driving 

force behind oil price movements. Thereafter, trend chasing patterns appear to be 

better in capturing the developments in oil 

futures markets.’’ 

98) Von Braun, Joachim (Bonn University) 

(2010). Time to regulate volatile food markets (Financial Times article): ‘‘The setting 

of prices at the main international commodity exchanges was significantly influenced by speculation that boosted prices. 

Not only are food and energy markets 

linked, but also food and financial markets 

have become intertwined—in short, the 

‘‘financialisation’’ of food trade. There are 

increasing indications that some financial 

capital is shifting from speculation on housing and complex derivatives to commodities, 

including food.’’ 

99) Woolley, Paul (former fund manager. 

York University/London School of Economics) (2010). Why are financial markets so inefficient and exploitative—and a suggested 

remedy. ‘‘Before the middle of the last decade the prices of individual commodities 

could be explained by the supply and demand 

from producers and consumers. With the 

flood of passive and active investment funds 

going into commodities from 2005 onwards, 

prices have been increasingly driven by fund 

inflows rather than fundamental factors. 

Prices no longer provide a reliable signal to 

producers or consumers. More damagingly, 

commodity prices have a direct impact on 

consumer price indices and the role of central banks in controlling inflation is made 

doubly difficult now that commodity prices 

are subject to volatile fund flows from investors.’’ 

100) Wray, Randall L. (University of Missouri-Kansas City) (2008) The Commodities 

Market Bubble—Money Manager Capitalism 

and the Financialization of Commodities. 

Public Policy Brief No 96. The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College: ‘‘There is adequate evidence that financialization is a big 

part of the problem, and there is sufficient 

cause for policymakers to intervene with 

sensible constraints and oversight to reduce 

the influence of managed money in these 

markets.’’ 

So with that, I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise 

in opposition to the gentleman’s 

amendment. 

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman 

from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONAWAY. I rise today to oppose the gentleman’s amendment. 

This amendment, which exempts any 

regulation aimed at limiting oil speculation from the provisions of this bill, 

is no doubt well-intentioned. No one in 

this body should be willing to settle for 

any market manipulation or illegal 

trading activities. Indeed, the Federal 

Government already has a robust and 

effective enforcement effort. In an 

April 2011 letter to Senator MARIA

CANTWELL, the Federal Trade Commission wrote: 

The Commission established a number of 

processes to identify, investigate, and, if 

warranted, prosecute illegal behavior in the 

energy industry using our full array of enforcement tools. After review, Bureau of 

Competition staff determined that none of 

the complaints involved conduct that violated the market manipulation rules. 

In fact, CFTC Chairman Mike Dunn 

summarized it in a January 13, 2011, 

statement during the open meeting on 

the proposed rule. He said: 

To date, CFTC staff has been unable to find 

any reliable economic analysis to support either the conclusion that excessive speculation is affecting the markets we regulate or 

that position limits will prevent excessive 

speculation. 

Indeed, study after study has shown 

that excessive speculation has not been 

the problem that my colleague would 

argue. Instead, almost every instance 

of high prices can be traced back to 

market fundamentals and an imbalance in supply and demand. 

But today’s amendment, though, 

isn’t really about excessive speculation. If it were, we would also be talking about the speculators who have 

brought the natural gas markets to an 

all-time low, betting that our newfound abundance of natural gas cannot 

all be used. Instead, today’s amendment is about finding fault. It’s about 

finding a scapegoat for the problem of 

high gas prices that have been plaguing 

all of our constituents. 

While I can sympathize with the gentleman’s desire to know who is responsible, the truth is the high price of oil 

is a problem of our own making. Policy 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
July 25, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5259 

decisions that were made years ago— 

failing to open new areas of production, 

boutique fuel mandates, and slow-walking new infrastructure—all contribute 

to today’s pain at the pump. 

Compounding these regulatory burdens is a growing long-term supply 

problem. While we have experienced recent production gains, that may not be 

enough to offset the demands of an expanding global economy. As China, 

India, and others continue to industrialize, and as the United States shakes 

off its economic downturn, we will 

again see pressure on production to 

keep pace with demand. 

Over the past 3 years, oil producers 

in America have invested in new drilling technology and set off a production 

boom in places like North Dakota, 

Pennsylvania, and in my home State, 

my hometown in the Permian Basin 

area. This investment has led to 3 

straight years of increasing domestic 

production on private lands, adding an 

additional 120,000 barrels of oil a day in 

production last year alone. 

If prices are too high, we should not 

castigate producers and/or investors; 

we should open access to more supplies. 

If it is worth it, Americans will 

produce more oil and bring down 

prices. 

Efforts to blunt market signals by introducing regulations that make it 

harder to trade commodities may provide a temporary reprieve from high 

prices, but it will come at a cost. In the 

long term, artificially lowered prices 

like this may lead to less investment 

and ultimate supply shortages. The 

better way to fight high prices is to increase supply. Just as the natural gas 

markets have plummeted to 10-year 

lows, oil prices will respond to increasing production. 

I urge my colleagues to oppose the 

amendment and not to waste any more 

taxpayer dollars on finding blame for 

Congress’ failure to act. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. KUCINICH. I just want to say to 

my friend that if the Commodity Futures Trading Commission isn’t really 

sure of the impact of speculation, I 

have 100 different studies here—100. 

And if you would like, if you have a 

budget for copy, we’ll be glad to bring 

it over to the CFTC so they can see 

that speculation is undermining markets and undermining consumers. 

Also, none other than Goldman Sachs 

did a study on the impact of speculation. If you translate their study, our 

constituents are paying a 56-cent-pergallon increase on the price at the 

pump for speculation. Stick ‘em up? 

No. We have to make sure that we hold 

the speculators to an accountability, 

and particularly in oil markets. 

I ask everyone to support this 

amendment, something we should be 

able to agree on on a bipartisan basis. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

The Acting CHAIR. The question is 

on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. KUCINICH). 

The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it. 

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. 

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to 

clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Ohio will be postponed. 

AMENDMENT NO. 4 OFFERED BY MR. WELCH

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order 

to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 

part B of House Report 112–616. 

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I have an 

amendment at the desk. 

The Acting CHAIR. Is the gentleman 

a designee of Mr. LIPINSKI of Illinois? 

Mr. WELCH. Yes. 

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will 

designate the amendment. 

The text of the amendment is as follows: 

Page 3, line 18, strike ‘‘or (d)’’ and insert 

the following: ‘‘(d), or (e)’’. 

Page 5, insert after line 7 the following: 

(e) SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY ACTIONS PROMOTING ENERGY EFFICIENCY.—An agency may 

take any significant regulatory action that 

is intended to promote energy efficiency. 

Page 10, insert after line 13 the following 

and redesignate provisions accordingly: 

(c) PROMOTION OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY EXCEPTION.—Section 202 shall not apply to a 

midnight rule that is intended to promote 

energy efficiency. 

Page 20, insert after line 12 the following: 

SEC. 305. EXCEPTION FOR PROMOTION OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY. 

The provisions of this title do not apply to 

any consent decree or settlement agreement 

pertaining to a regulatory action that is intended to promote energy efficiency. 

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to 

House Resolution 738, the gentleman 

from Vermont (Mr. WELCH) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Vermont. 

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I want to 

preface my remarks by two things: 

number one, not all regulations are 

good. It’s a fair and appropriate question to examine whether regulations 

are useful or harmful. But second, not 

all regulations are bad. They can be 

useful, particularly in the area of energy efficiency. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, we’re having a 

very contentious debate about energy 

policy, but we’ve found one area where 

there is common agreement, and that’s 

less is more. Any time, whatever your 

fuel choice is—whether it’s coal, nuclear, oil, solar, wind—using less means 

you save money. That’s a good thing. 

Regulations can play a very constructive role in helping those of us 

who participate in the economy as individuals and as businesses to save 

money. My amendment would exempt 

from this overbroad bill rules that 

would prohibit energy efficiency-saving 

regulations. 

Let me give a very good example of 

something that would happen detrimental to the economy if this bill is 

not amended. 

Fuel standards were established in 

November. They have not yet gone into 

effect and would be prohibited from 

going into effect. The fuel economy 

standards for model years 2017 to 2025 

will carry our vehicle fleet to an average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon. The consumers support this and, 

my friends, the industry supports this. 

The car industry supports this. And 

one of the reasons they do is, if you 

have a rule that applies to all our manufacturers, that’s the rule that they 

will manufacture their cars to. 

b 1800 

So you won’t have gaming of this to 

try to get some short-term advantage 

at the expense of the consumer, at the 

expense of a competitor. 

So energy efficiency is something 

that can help us save money. It can 

help the economy be more efficient. 

And in order to achieve the goal of energy efficiency, regulations, reasonably 

enacted, are absolutely essential to 

achieving that goal. 

Mr. Chairman, I urge this body to 

adopt the amendment and improve this 

bill. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. 

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that I’ve been 

saying repeatedly when the other 

amendments were debated I will repeat: the bill that we have before us 

has ample exceptions for regulatory action. And, in fact, it has a catch-all 

waiver that will allow the President of 

the United States to seek approval of 

regulations, but he’ll have to work 

with Congress on them. After all, we’re 

the ones that authorize the laws, the 

bills; and we should be authorizing and 

approving regulations. 

There’s no limit to which ones. The 

regulations addressed by this amendment would certainly be fertile ground 

for the President to forward to Congress for approval. So there are ample 

exceptions and waivers. 

And I would also point out that, as I 

indicated earlier, I’m not anti-regulation. It’s the excessive and overly burdensome regulations that we are concerned with. We need reasonable regulation, commonsense regulation. But 

the problem is the system, the regulatory system, has gotten out of control. 

So there are ample ways to deal with 

the issue addressed here under the bill, 

and I believe this amendment is unnecessary, and I oppose it. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WELCH. May I inquire as to how 

much time I have. 

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman 

from Vermont has 21⁄2 minutes remaining. 

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, two 

things: number one, we can’t have a 

comprehensive, one-size-fits-all bill 

that applies to regulations. It requires 

some judgment. That means that there 

are some regulations that are good, 

some are bad. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5260 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 25, 2012 

The gentleman, I think, is defending 

a bill that essentially has, as its proposition, all regulations, by definition, 

are detrimental to the economy, when 

that’s not even close to accurate. 

Second, I appreciate the gentleman’s 

description of a waiver process that 

gives, unfortunately, a theoretical way 

to resolve a situation, but it’s not a 

practical remedy. It requires congressional action. 

And here’s, Mr. Chairman, where I 

think we’ve got to get real with ourselves, and we’ve got to get real with 

the American people. The idea that we 

can agree on a disputed regulation 

would suggest that we could have 

agreed on student loan interest rates, 

that we could have agreed on the debt 

ceiling, that we could have agreed on a 

grand bargain. All of these issues that 

are enormously contentious and consequential for the American people, we 

have sharp divisions. 

And I’m not asserting who’s right or 

wrong in this. I’m saying that all of us 

have to acknowledge the obvious and, 

that is, that Congress is pretty close to 

dysfunctional. Things that have to be 

addressed are being neglected. 

So this notion that when it comes to 

the car mileage standard, we’ll be able 

to come into Congress and do a 

Kumbaya and all of us get together and 

reach agreement on one thing when, on 

everything else, the simplest of things 

we can’t reach agreement, is not being 

direct and straightforward with ourselves or with the American people. 

Let’s carve out an exception to this 

bill so that when this economy and our 

consumers and businesses can benefit 

by energy efficiency, which our industry supports, which our people and consumers support, we allow them to do 

that. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

The Acting CHAIR. The question is 

on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. WELCH). 

The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it. 

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I demand 

a recorded vote. 

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to 

clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Vermont will be 

postponed. 

AMENDMENT NO. 5 OFFERED BY MR. MARKEY

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order 

to consider amendment No. 5 printed in 

part B of House Report 112–616. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have 

an amendment at the desk. 

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will 

designate the amendment. 

The text of the amendment is as follows: 

Page 3, line 18, strike ‘‘or (d)’’ and insert 

‘‘(d), or (e)’’. 

Page 5, after line 7, insert the following 

new subsection: 

(e) ADDITIONAL EXCEPTION.—An agency 

may take a significant regulatory action if 

such action would protect the public from 

extreme weather events, including drought, 

flooding, and catastrophic wildfire. 

Page 10, after line 4, insert the following 

new paragraph: 

(3) necessary to protect the public from extreme weather events, including drought, 

flooding, and catastrophic wildfire; 

Page 10, line 5, strike ‘‘(3)’’ and insert 

‘‘(4)’’. 

Page 10, line 7, strike ‘‘(4)’’ and insert 

‘‘(5)’’. 

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to 

House Resolution 738, the gentleman 

from Massachusetts (Mr. MARKEY) and 

a Member opposed each will control 5 

minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Massachusetts. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 

myself, at this point, 2 minutes, and 

it’s just to lay out how simple this 

amendment is. 

It would ensure that the government 

could act to protect the public from extreme weather, including drought, 

flooding, and catastrophic wildfire. 

The Republican bill on the floor 

today is so broadly and badly written, 

who knows what could fall through the 

holes it blasts in America’s safety net. 

Given the record-breaking extreme 

weather events our country has experienced in the last few years, it cannot 

risk tying the helping hands of government when it comes to dealing with 

droughts and floods and wildfires and 

extreme events. 

Mr. WELCH was just talking about 

these fuel economy standards that lift 

our fuel economy standards to 54.5 

miles per gallon by the year 2026. Well, 

that’s a message to OPEC that we don’t 

need their oil anymore than we need 

their sand. But it’s also a message that 

we can reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we’re sending up into the 

atmosphere in a dramatic way. 

And do you know who’s complying 

with that? Do you know who said they 

support it? The auto industry of the 

United States of America. 

So it’s not that we’re doing anything 

that’s radical. The radical activity is 

coming from the majority, from the 

Republican Party, that just has an 

aversion to anything that is put on the 

books as regulation, even if it helps 

America’s safety, helps America’s climate, helps America’s foreign policy to 

back out imported oil. And that’s really what’s very troubling here today. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I rise in 

opposition to the amendment. 

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is, like the others, unnecessary. And as it is drafted, 

it seems to suggest that the Federal 

Government can somehow regulate the 

weather. 

Titles I and II of this bill were carefully drafted to block only those unnecessary, most costly regulations, 

those that cost the economy $100 million or more. The bill contains reasonable exceptions for the President to 

issue a regulation, for example, that is 

‘‘necessary because of an imminent 

threat to health or safety or other 

emergency’’ or one that is ‘‘necessary 

for the national security of the United 

States.’’ 

The bill also contains a congressional 

waiver exception whereby the President can make any other necessary 

regulation with the permission of Congress. 

King Canute famously demonstrated 

many centuries ago that the weather 

does not respect executive fiat. Although the Federal Government cannot 

control the weather by regulation, it 

can issue regulations to help Americans cope with the effects of extreme 

weather. 

I believe the exceptions already in 

this bill would cover regulations related to the extreme weather events 

suggested by the gentleman from Massachusetts’ amendment. For these reasons, I oppose this amendment. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 

1 minute to the gentleman from 

Vermont (Mr. WELCH). 

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman. 

So is the question this, that we’re 

supposed to do literally nothing about 

extreme weather? Are we supposed to 

pretend that we don’t have extreme 

weather? 

We’ve had the worst drought, the 

hottest 12-month period in the history 

of keeping records since 1895. You can 

go throughout the entire country and 

see almost everywhere now the effects 

of extreme weather. 

In our State of Vermont, Mr. Chair, 

last August 28, Tropical Storm Irene 

dumped an immense amount of water 

and did the worst damage since 1927. 

We didn’t used to have storms like 

that. 

We also are starting to have a threat 

to our maple trees, from which come 

the best maple syrup in the country, in 

the world. 

Mr. Chairman, extreme weather is 

real. It’s serious. And our response is to 

put our heads in the sand. 

I support this amendment. 

b 1810 

The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would 

advise the gentleman from Vermont 

that the best maple syrup comes from 

Chardon, Ohio. 

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. Would the Chair be 

able to give a recapitulation of the 

time remaining? 

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman 

from Massachusetts has 2 minutes and 

15 seconds remaining. 

Mr. MARKEY. Corn is shriveling. 

Pastures are dying. More than 1,000 

counties in 29 States are eligible for 

drought disaster assistance. Increased 

food prices from droughts act like an 

extreme weather food tax on every single American. Even if the drought is 

not in your neighborhood, you will feel 

the pain at the checkout counter. Even 

if the heat wave has broken in your 

State, your cupboard may be emptier 

as you have to make hard choices at 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
July 25, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5261 

the grocery store. Even if the storm 

skips your town, the disruptions will 

be felt all the way to your dinner plate. 

Many of our Western forests are also 

extremely dry. Wildfire has already 

burned millions of acres this summer. 

Tens of thousand of people have had to 

evacuate. Hundreds of homes have been 

destroyed. Lives have been lost. 

We also know that increasing carbon 

pollution increases the risk of extreme 

weather. We all buy flood and fire insurance for our homes. This amendment is the flood and fire insurance for 

America from the disaster, the disaster 

that is this Republican legislation. 

On the other side of this spectrum, 

parts of Minnesota and Florida experienced devastating flooding in June. 

The rain from Tropical Storm Debby 

caused Florida to have its wettest June 

ever. All of this occurred during the 

hottest 12-month period for the lower 

48 States since record-keeping began in 

1895, and it follows 2011, when America 

experienced a record 14 extreme weather disasters that each caused $1 billion 

or more of damage. 

Clearly, extreme weather is a threat 

to the safety and the security of the 

American people and the economy, but 

this Republican bill could smother the 

government’s ability to prepare for a 

response to extreme weather events. 

This amendment would make sure that 

the government’s regulatory fire blanket is ready for emergencies. The risk 

of extreme weather is not going away. 

In fact, it is increasing. Mark Twain 

once complained that everybody talks 

about the weather, but nobody does 

anything about it. Well, now we are 

with this amendment. 

By pumping carbon into the air, we 

are changing the climate, raising the 

temperature, increasing the risk of extreme weather. The Republicans just 

don’t accept science. Vote ‘‘aye’’ on the 

Markey amendment. 

The Acting CHAIR. The question is 

on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. MARKEY). 

The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. 

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to 

clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Massachusetts will 

be postponed. 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE ACTING CHAIR

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to 

clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 

now resume on those amendments 

printed in Part B of House Report 112– 

616 on which further proceedings were 

postponed, in the following order: 

Amendment No. 1 by Mr. HASTINGS of 

Florida. 

Amendment No. 2 by Mr. JOHNSON of 

Georgia. 

Amendment No. 3 by Mr. KUCINICH of 

Ohio. 

Amendment No. 4 by Mr. WELCH of 

Vermont. 

Amendment No. 5 by Mr. MARKEY of 

Massachusetts. 

The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes 

the minimum time for any electronic 

vote after the first vote in this series. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 OFFERED BY MR. HASTINGS

OF FLORIDA

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished 

business is the demand for a recorded 

vote on the amendment offered by the 

gentleman from Florida (Mr. HASTINGS) 

on which further proceedings were 

postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. 

The Clerk will redesignate the 

amendment. 

The Clerk redesignated the amendment. 

RECORDED VOTE

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote 

has been demanded. 

A recorded vote was ordered. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—ayes 188, noes 231, 

not voting 12, as follows: 

[Roll No. 514] 

AYES—188 

Ackerman 

Altmire 

Andrews 

Baca 

Baldwin 

Barber 

Bass (CA) 

Becerra 

Berkley 

Berman 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (NY) 

Blumenauer 

Bonamici 

Boswell 

Brady (PA) 

Braley (IA) 

Brown (FL) 

Butterfield 

Capps 

Capuano 

Cardoza 

Carnahan 

Carney 

Carson (IN) 

Castor (FL) 

Chandler 

Chu 

Cicilline 

Clarke (MI) 

Clarke (NY) 

Clay 

Cleaver 

Clyburn 

Cohen 

Connolly (VA) 

Conyers 

Cooper 

Costa 

Costello 

Courtney 

Critz 

Crowley 

Cuellar 

Cummings 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

DeLauro 

Dent 

Deutch 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Dold 

Donnelly (IN) 

Doyle 

Edwards 

Ellison 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Farr 

Fattah 

Filner 

Fitzpatrick 

Fortenberry 

Frank (MA) 

Fudge 

Gerlach 

Gibson 

Gonzalez 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Grijalva 

Gutierrez 

Hahn 

Hanabusa 

Hastings (FL) 

Heinrich 

Higgins 

Himes 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hochul 

Holt 

Honda 

Hoyer 

Israel 

Johnson (GA) 

Johnson (IL) 

Johnson, E. B. 

Kaptur 

Keating 

Kildee 

Kind 

Kissell 

Kucinich 

Langevin 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

Lee (CA) 

Levin 

Lewis (GA) 

Lipinski 

LoBiondo 

Loebsack 

Lofgren, Zoe 

Lowey 

Luja ́n 

Lynch 

Maloney 

Markey 

Matsui 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCollum 

McDermott 

McGovern 

McIntyre 

McNerney 

Meehan 

Meeks 

Michaud 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, George 

Moore 

Moran 

Murphy (CT) 

Nadler 

Napolitano 

Neal 

Olver 

Pallone 

Pascrell 

Pastor (AZ) 

Pelosi 

Perlmutter 

Peters 

Pingree (ME) 

Platts 

Polis 

Price (NC) 

Quigley 

Rangel 

Reichert 

Richardson 

Rothman (NJ) 

Roybal-Allard 

Runyan 

Ruppersberger 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

Sa ́nchez, Linda 

T. 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Sarbanes 

Schakowsky 

Schiff 

Schrader 

Schwartz 

Scott (VA) 

Scott, David 

Serrano 

Sewell 

Sherman 

Sires 

Slaughter 

Smith (WA) 

Speier 

Stark 

Thompson (CA) 

Thompson (MS) 

Tierney 

Tipton 

Tonko 

Towns 

Tsongas 

Van Hollen 

Vela ́ zquez 

Visclosky 

Walz (MN) 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 

Watt 

Waxman 

Welch 

Wilson (FL) 

Woolsey 

Yarmuth 

Young (FL) 

NOES—231 

Adams 

Aderholt 

Akin 

Alexander 

Amash 

Amodei 

Austria 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Barletta 

Barrow 

Bartlett 

Barton (TX) 

Bass (NH) 

Benishek 

Berg 

Biggert 

Bilbray 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (UT) 

Black 

Blackburn 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boren 

Boustany 

Brady (TX) 

Brooks 

Broun (GA) 

Buchanan 

Bucshon 

Buerkle 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Calvert 

Camp 

Campbell 

Canseco 

Cantor 

Capito 

Carter 

Cassidy 

Chabot 

Chaffetz 

Coble 

Coffman (CO) 

Cole 

Conaway 

Cravaack 

Crawford 

Crenshaw 

Davis (KY) 

Denham 

DesJarlais 

Diaz-Balart 

Dreier 

Duffy 

Duncan (SC) 

Duncan (TN) 

Ellmers 

Emerson 

Farenthold 

Fincher 

Flake 

Fleischmann 

Fleming 

Flores 

Forbes 

Foxx 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Gallegly 

Gardner 

Garrett 

Gibbs 

Gingrey (GA) 

Gohmert 

Goodlatte 

Gosar 

Gowdy 

Granger 

Graves (GA) 

Graves (MO) 

Griffin (AR) 

Griffith (VA) 

Grimm 

Guinta 

Guthrie 

Hall 

Hanna 

Harper 

Harris 

Hartzler 

Hastings (WA) 

Hayworth 

Heck 

Hensarling 

Herger 

Herrera Beutler 

Holden 

Huelskamp 

Huizenga (MI) 

Hultgren 

Hunter 

Hurt 

Issa 

Jenkins 

Johnson (OH) 

Johnson, Sam 

Jones 

Jordan 

Kelly 

King (IA) 

King (NY) 

Kingston 

Kinzinger (IL) 

Kline 

Labrador 

Lamborn 

Lance 

Landry 

Lankford 

Latham 

LaTourette 

Latta 

Long 

Lucas 

Luetkemeyer 

Lummis 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Mack 

Manzullo 

Marchant 

Marino 

Matheson 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCaul 

McClintock 

McHenry 

McKeon 

McKinley 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

Mica 

Miller (FL) 

Miller (MI) 

Miller, Gary 

Mulvaney 

Murphy (PA) 

Myrick 

Neugebauer 

Nugent 

Nunes 

Nunnelee 

Olson 

Owens 

Palazzo 

Paul 

Paulsen 

Pearce 

Pence 

Peterson 

Petri 

Pitts 

Poe (TX) 

Pompeo 

Posey 

Price (GA) 

Quayle 

Rahall 

Reed 

Rehberg 

Renacci 

Ribble 

Rigell 

Rivera 

Roby 

Roe (TN) 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Rohrabacher 

Rokita 

Rooney 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Ross (AR) 

Ross (FL) 

Royce 

Ryan (WI) 

Scalise 

Schilling 

Schmidt 

Schock 

Schweikert 

Scott (SC) 

Scott, Austin 

Sensenbrenner 

Sessions 

Shimkus 

Shuler 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Southerland 

Stearns 

Stutzman 

Sullivan 

Terry 

Thompson (PA) 

Thornberry 

Tiberi 

Turner (NY) 

Turner (OH) 

Upton 

Walberg 

Walden 

Walsh (IL) 

Webster 

West 

Westmoreland 

Whitfield 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman 

Wolf 

Womack 

Woodall 

Yoder 

Young (AK) 

Young (IN) 

NOT VOTING—12 

Culberson 

Dicks 

Garamendi 

Hirono 

Jackson (IL) 

Jackson Lee 

(TX) 

Lewis (CA) 

Noem 

Reyes 

Richmond 

Stivers 

Sutton 

b 1839 

Messrs. RYAN of Wisconsin, CAMPBELL, COBLE, FLAKE, GRIFFITH of 

Virginia, BARTLETT, and SMITH of 

Nebraska changed their vote from 

‘‘aye’’ to ‘‘no.’’ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5262 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 25, 2012 

Messrs. TIPTON, TOWNS, BISHOP of 

Georgia, MCDERMOTT, PLATTS, and 

MEEHAN changed their vote from 

‘‘no’’ to ‘‘aye.’’ 

So the amendment was rejected. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

AMENDMENT NO. 2 OFFERED BY MR. JOHNSON OF

GEORGIA

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished 

business is the demand for a recorded 

vote on the amendment offered by the 

gentleman from Georgia (Mr. JOHNSON) 

on which further proceedings were 

postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. 

The Clerk will redesignate the 

amendment. 

The Clerk redesignated the amendment. 

RECORDED VOTE

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote 

has been demanded. 

A recorded vote was ordered. 

The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2- 

minute vote. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—ayes 159, noes 259, 

not voting 13, as follows: 

[Roll No. 515] 

AYES—159 

Ackerman 

Andrews 

Baca 

Baldwin 

Barber 

Bass (CA) 

Becerra 

Berkley 

Berman 

Blumenauer 

Bonamici 

Boswell 

Brady (PA) 

Braley (IA) 

Capps 

Capuano 

Cardoza 

Carnahan 

Carney 

Carson (IN) 

Castor (FL) 

Chu 

Cicilline 

Clarke (MI) 

Clarke (NY) 

Cohen 

Connolly (VA) 

Conyers 

Cooper 

Costa 

Costello 

Courtney 

Critz 

Crowley 

Cuellar 

Cummings 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

DeLauro 

Deutch 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Donnelly (IN) 

Doyle 

Edwards 

Ellison 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Farr 

Fattah 

Filner 

Frank (MA) 

Gonzalez 

Grijalva 

Gutierrez 

Hahn 

Hanabusa 

Hastings (FL) 

Heinrich 

Higgins 

Himes 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hochul 

Holt 

Honda 

Hoyer 

Israel 

Johnson (GA) 

Kaptur 

Keating 

Kildee 

Kind 

Kucinich 

Langevin 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

Lee (CA) 

Levin 

Lewis (GA) 

Lipinski 

Loebsack 

Lofgren, Zoe 

Lowey 

Luja ́n 

Lynch 

Maloney 

Markey 

Matsui 

McCarthy (NY) 

McClintock 

McCollum 

McDermott 

McGovern 

McNerney 

Michaud 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, George 

Moore 

Moran 

Murphy (CT) 

Nadler 

Napolitano 

Neal 

Olver 

Pallone 

Pascrell 

Pastor (AZ) 

Pelosi 

Perlmutter 

Peters 

Pingree (ME) 

Polis 

Price (NC) 

Quigley 

Rangel 

Reichert 

Richardson 

Rothman (NJ) 

Roybal-Allard 

Ruppersberger 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

Sa ́nchez, Linda 

T. 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Sarbanes 

Schakowsky 

Schiff 

Schrader 

Schwartz 

Scott (VA) 

Scott, David 

Serrano 

Sewell 

Sherman 

Sires 

Slaughter 

Smith (WA) 

Speier 

Stark 

Thompson (CA) 

Tierney 

Tonko 

Towns 

Tsongas 

Van Hollen 

Vela ́ zquez 

Visclosky 

Walz (MN) 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 

Watt 

Waxman 

Welch 

Wilson (FL) 

Woolsey 

Yarmuth 

NOES—259 

Adams 

Aderholt 

Akin 

Alexander 

Altmire 

Amash 

Amodei 

Austria 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Barletta 

Barrow 

Bartlett 

Barton (TX) 

Bass (NH) 

Benishek 

Berg 

Biggert 

Bilbray 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (UT) 

Black 

Blackburn 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boren 

Boustany 

Brady (TX) 

Brooks 

Broun (GA) 

Brown (FL) 

Buchanan 

Bucshon 

Buerkle 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Butterfield 

Calvert 

Camp 

Campbell 

Canseco 

Cantor 

Capito 

Carter 

Cassidy 

Chabot 

Chaffetz 

Chandler 

Clay 

Cleaver 

Clyburn 

Coble 

Coffman (CO) 

Cole 

Conaway 

Cravaack 

Crawford 

Crenshaw 

Davis (KY) 

Denham 

Dent 

DesJarlais 

Diaz-Balart 

Dold 

Dreier 

Duffy 

Duncan (SC) 

Duncan (TN) 

Ellmers 

Emerson 

Farenthold 

Fincher 

Fitzpatrick 

Flake 

Fleischmann 

Fleming 

Flores 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Foxx 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Fudge 

Gallegly 

Gardner 

Garrett 

Gerlach 

Gibbs 

Gibson 

Gingrey (GA) 

Gohmert 

Goodlatte 

Gosar 

Gowdy 

Granger 

Graves (GA) 

Graves (MO) 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Griffin (AR) 

Griffith (VA) 

Grimm 

Guinta 

Guthrie 

Hall 

Hanna 

Harper 

Harris 

Hartzler 

Hastings (WA) 

Hayworth 

Heck 

Hensarling 

Herger 

Herrera Beutler 

Holden 

Huelskamp 

Huizenga (MI) 

Hultgren 

Hunter 

Hurt 

Issa 

Jenkins 

Johnson (IL) 

Johnson (OH) 

Johnson, E. B. 

Johnson, Sam 

Jones 

Jordan 

Kelly 

King (IA) 

King (NY) 

Kingston 

Kinzinger (IL) 

Kissell 

Kline 

Labrador 

Lamborn 

Lance 

Landry 

Lankford 

Latham 

LaTourette 

Latta 

LoBiondo 

Long 

Lucas 

Luetkemeyer 

Lummis 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Mack 

Manzullo 

Marchant 

Marino 

Matheson 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCaul 

McHenry 

McIntyre 

McKeon 

McKinley 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

Meehan 

Meeks 

Mica 

Miller (FL) 

Miller (MI) 

Miller, Gary 

Mulvaney 

Murphy (PA) 

Myrick 

Neugebauer 

Noem 

Nugent 

Nunes 

Nunnelee 

Olson 

Owens 

Palazzo 

Paul 

Paulsen 

Pearce 

Pence 

Peterson 

Petri 

Pitts 

Platts 

Poe (TX) 

Pompeo 

Posey 

Price (GA) 

Quayle 

Rahall 

Reed 

Rehberg 

Renacci 

Ribble 

Rigell 

Rivera 

Roby 

Roe (TN) 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Rohrabacher 

Rokita 

Rooney 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Ross (AR) 

Ross (FL) 

Royce 

Runyan 

Ryan (WI) 

Scalise 

Schilling 

Schmidt 

Schock 

Schweikert 

Scott (SC) 

Scott, Austin 

Sensenbrenner 

Sessions 

Shimkus 

Shuler 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Southerland 

Stutzman 

Sullivan 

Terry 

Thompson (MS) 

Thompson (PA) 

Thornberry 

Tiberi 

Tipton 

Turner (NY) 

Turner (OH) 

Upton 

Walberg 

Walden 

Walsh (IL) 

Webster 

West 

Westmoreland 

Whitfield 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman 

Wolf 

Womack 

Woodall 

Yoder 

Young (AK) 

Young (FL) 

Young (IN) 

NOT VOTING—13 

Bishop (NY) 

Culberson 

Dicks 

Garamendi 

Hirono 

Jackson (IL) 

Jackson Lee 

(TX) 

Lewis (CA) 

Reyes 

Richmond 

Stearns 

Stivers 

Sutton 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE ACTING CHAIR

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. SIMPSON) 

(during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining. 

b 1843 

So the amendment was rejected. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

Stated against: 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 

515 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 

present, I would have voted ‘‘no.’’ 

AMENDMENT NO. 3 OFFERED BY MR. KUCINICH

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished 

business is the demand for a recorded 

vote on the amendment offered by the 

gentleman from Ohio (Mr. KUCINICH) on 

which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed 

by voice vote. 

The Clerk will redesignate the 

amendment. 

The Clerk redesignated the amendment. 

RECORDED VOTE

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote 

has been demanded. 

A recorded vote was ordered. 

The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2- 

minute vote. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—ayes 173, noes 245, 

not voting 13, as follows: 

[Roll No. 516] 

AYES—173 

Ackerman 

Altmire 

Andrews 

Baca 

Baldwin 

Barber 

Bass (CA) 

Becerra 

Berkley 

Berman 

Bilbray 

Blumenauer 

Bonamici 

Boswell 

Brady (PA) 

Braley (IA) 

Brown (FL) 

Butterfield 

Capps 

Capuano 

Cardoza 

Carnahan 

Carney 

Carson (IN) 

Castor (FL) 

Chandler 

Chu 

Cicilline 

Clarke (MI) 

Clarke (NY) 

Clay 

Cleaver 

Clyburn 

Cohen 

Connolly (VA) 

Conyers 

Costa 

Costello 

Courtney 

Critz 

Crowley 

Cummings 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

DeLauro 

Deutch 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Donnelly (IN) 

Doyle 

Edwards 

Ellison 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Farr 

Fattah 

Filner 

Fitzpatrick 

Fortenberry 

Frank (MA) 

Fudge 

Gibson 

Gonzalez 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Grijalva 

Gutierrez 

Hahn 

Hanabusa 

Hastings (FL) 

Heinrich 

Higgins 

Himes 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hochul 

Holt 

Honda 

Hoyer 

Israel 

Johnson (GA) 

Johnson, E. B. 

Jones 

Kaptur 

Keating 

Kildee 

Kind 

Kissell 

Kucinich 

Langevin 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

Lee (CA) 

Levin 

Lewis (GA) 

Lipinski 

LoBiondo 

Loebsack 

Lofgren, Zoe 

Lowey 

Luja ́n 

Maloney 

Markey 

Matsui 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCollum 

McDermott 

McGovern 

McNerney 

Meeks 

Michaud 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, George 

Moore 

Moran 

Murphy (CT) 

Nadler 

Napolitano 

Neal 

Olver 

Pallone 

Pascrell 

Pastor (AZ) 

Pelosi 

Perlmutter 

Peters 

Pingree (ME) 

Polis 

Price (NC) 

Quigley 

Rangel 

Richardson 

Rothman (NJ) 

Roybal-Allard 

Ruppersberger 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

Sa ́nchez, Linda 

T. 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Sarbanes 

Schakowsky 

Schiff 

Schwartz 

Scott (VA) 

Scott, David 

Serrano 

Sewell 

Sherman 

Sires 

Slaughter 

Smith (WA) 

Speier 

Stark 

Thompson (CA) 

Thompson (MS) 

Tierney 

Tonko 

Towns 

Tsongas 

Van Hollen 

Vela ́ zquez 

Visclosky 

Walz (MN) 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
July 25, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5263 

Watt 

Waxman 

Welch 

Wilson (FL) 

Woolsey 

Yarmuth 

NOES—245 

Adams 

Aderholt 

Akin 

Alexander 

Amash 

Amodei 

Austria 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Barletta 

Barrow 

Bartlett 

Barton (TX) 

Bass (NH) 

Benishek 

Berg 

Biggert 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (UT) 

Black 

Blackburn 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boren 

Boustany 

Brady (TX) 

Brooks 

Broun (GA) 

Buchanan 

Bucshon 

Buerkle 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Calvert 

Camp 

Campbell 

Canseco 

Cantor 

Capito 

Carter 

Cassidy 

Chabot 

Chaffetz 

Coble 

Coffman (CO) 

Cole 

Conaway 

Cooper 

Cravaack 

Crawford 

Crenshaw 

Cuellar 

Davis (KY) 

Denham 

Dent 

DesJarlais 

Diaz-Balart 

Dold 

Dreier 

Duffy 

Duncan (SC) 

Duncan (TN) 

Ellmers 

Emerson 

Farenthold 

Fincher 

Flake 

Fleischmann 

Fleming 

Flores 

Forbes 

Foxx 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Gallegly 

Gardner 

Garrett 

Gerlach 

Gibbs 

Gingrey (GA) 

Gohmert 

Goodlatte 

Gosar 

Gowdy 

Granger 

Graves (GA) 

Graves (MO) 

Griffin (AR) 

Griffith (VA) 

Grimm 

Guinta 

Guthrie 

Hall 

Hanna 

Harper 

Harris 

Hartzler 

Hastings (WA) 

Hayworth 

Heck 

Hensarling 

Herger 

Herrera Beutler 

Holden 

Huelskamp 

Huizenga (MI) 

Hultgren 

Hunter 

Hurt 

Issa 

Jenkins 

Johnson (IL) 

Johnson (OH) 

Johnson, Sam 

Jordan 

Kelly 

King (IA) 

King (NY) 

Kingston 

Kinzinger (IL) 

Kline 

Labrador 

Lamborn 

Lance 

Landry 

Lankford 

Latham 

LaTourette 

Latta 

Long 

Lucas 

Luetkemeyer 

Lummis 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Mack 

Manzullo 

Marchant 

Marino 

Matheson 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCaul 

McClintock 

McHenry 

McIntyre 

McKeon 

McKinley 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

Meehan 

Mica 

Miller (FL) 

Miller (MI) 

Miller, Gary 

Mulvaney 

Murphy (PA) 

Myrick 

Neugebauer 

Noem 

Nugent 

Nunes 

Nunnelee 

Olson 

Owens 

Palazzo 

Paul 

Paulsen 

Pearce 

Pence 

Peterson 

Petri 

Pitts 

Platts 

Poe (TX) 

Pompeo 

Posey 

Price (GA) 

Quayle 

Rahall 

Reed 

Rehberg 

Reichert 

Renacci 

Ribble 

Rigell 

Rivera 

Roby 

Roe (TN) 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Rohrabacher 

Rokita 

Rooney 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Ross (AR) 

Ross (FL) 

Royce 

Runyan 

Ryan (WI) 

Scalise 

Schilling 

Schmidt 

Schock 

Schrader 

Schweikert 

Scott (SC) 

Scott, Austin 

Sensenbrenner 

Sessions 

Shimkus 

Shuler 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Southerland 

Stearns 

Stutzman 

Sullivan 

Terry 

Thompson (PA) 

Thornberry 

Tiberi 

Tipton 

Turner (NY) 

Turner (OH) 

Upton 

Walberg 

Walden 

Walsh (IL) 

Webster 

West 

Westmoreland 

Whitfield 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman 

Wolf 

Womack 

Woodall 

Yoder 

Young (AK) 

Young (FL) 

Young (IN) 

NOT VOTING—13 

Bishop (NY) 

Culberson 

Dicks 

Garamendi 

Hirono 

Jackson (IL) 

Jackson Lee 

(TX) 

Lewis (CA) 

Lynch 

Reyes 

Richmond 

Stivers 

Sutton 

b 1847 

So the amendment was rejected. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

AMENDMENT NO. 4 OFFERED BY MR. WELCH

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished 

business is the demand for a recorded 

vote on the amendment offered by the 

gentleman from Vermont (Mr. WELCH) 

on which further proceedings were 

postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. 

The Clerk will redesignate the 

amendment. 

The Clerk redesignated the amendment. 

RECORDED VOTE

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote 

has been demanded. 

A recorded vote was ordered. 

The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2- 

minute vote. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—ayes 174, noes 242, 

not voting 15, as follows: 

[Roll No. 517] 

AYES—174 

Ackerman 

Altmire 

Andrews 

Baca 

Baldwin 

Barber 

Bass (CA) 

Becerra 

Berkley 

Berman 

Bilbray 

Blumenauer 

Bonamici 

Boswell 

Brady (PA) 

Braley (IA) 

Brown (FL) 

Butterfield 

Capps 

Capuano 

Cardoza 

Carnahan 

Carney 

Carson (IN) 

Castor (FL) 

Chandler 

Chu 

Cicilline 

Clarke (MI) 

Clarke (NY) 

Clay 

Cleaver 

Clyburn 

Cohen 

Connolly (VA) 

Conyers 

Cooper 

Costa 

Costello 

Courtney 

Critz 

Crowley 

Cuellar 

Cummings 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

DeLauro 

Deutch 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Donnelly (IN) 

Doyle 

Edwards 

Ellison 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Farr 

Fattah 

Filner 

Frank (MA) 

Fudge 

Gonzalez 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Grijalva 

Gutierrez 

Hahn 

Hanabusa 

Hastings (FL) 

Heinrich 

Higgins 

Himes 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hochul 

Holt 

Honda 

Hoyer 

Israel 

Johnson (GA) 

Johnson (IL) 

Johnson, E. B. 

Jones 

Kaptur 

Keating 

Kildee 

Kind 

Kissell 

Kucinich 

Langevin 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

Lee (CA) 

Levin 

Lewis (GA) 

Lipinski 

Loebsack 

Lofgren, Zoe 

Lowey 

Luja ́n 

Lynch 

Maloney 

Markey 

Matsui 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCollum 

McDermott 

McGovern 

McNerney 

Michaud 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, George 

Moore 

Moran 

Murphy (CT) 

Nadler 

Napolitano 

Neal 

Olver 

Owens 

Pallone 

Pascrell 

Pastor (AZ) 

Pelosi 

Perlmutter 

Peters 

Pingree (ME) 

Polis 

Price (NC) 

Quigley 

Rangel 

Richardson 

Rothman (NJ) 

Roybal-Allard 

Ruppersberger 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

Sa ́nchez, Linda 

T. 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Sarbanes 

Schakowsky 

Schiff 

Schrader 

Schwartz 

Scott (VA) 

Scott, David 

Serrano 

Sewell 

Sherman 

Sires 

Slaughter 

Smith (WA) 

Speier 

Stark 

Thompson (CA) 

Thompson (MS) 

Tierney 

Tonko 

Towns 

Tsongas 

Van Hollen 

Vela ́ zquez 

Visclosky 

Walz (MN) 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 

Watt 

Waxman 

Welch 

Wilson (FL) 

Woolsey 

Yarmuth 

NOES—242 

Adams 

Aderholt 

Alexander 

Amash 

Amodei 

Austria 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Barletta 

Barrow 

Bartlett 

Barton (TX) 

Bass (NH) 

Benishek 

Berg 

Biggert 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (UT) 

Black 

Blackburn 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boren 

Boustany 

Brady (TX) 

Brooks 

Broun (GA) 

Buchanan 

Bucshon 

Buerkle 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Calvert 

Camp 

Campbell 

Canseco 

Cantor 

Capito 

Carter 

Cassidy 

Chabot 

Chaffetz 

Coble 

Coffman (CO) 

Cole 

Conaway 

Cravaack 

Crawford 

Crenshaw 

Davis (KY) 

Denham 

Dent 

DesJarlais 

Diaz-Balart 

Dold 

Dreier 

Duffy 

Duncan (SC) 

Duncan (TN) 

Ellmers 

Emerson 

Farenthold 

Fincher 

Fitzpatrick 

Flake 

Fleischmann 

Fleming 

Flores 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Foxx 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Gallegly 

Gardner 

Garrett 

Gerlach 

Gibbs 

Gibson 

Gingrey (GA) 

Gohmert 

Goodlatte 

Gosar 

Gowdy 

Granger 

Graves (GA) 

Graves (MO) 

Griffin (AR) 

Griffith (VA) 

Grimm 

Guinta 

Guthrie 

Hall 

Hanna 

Harper 

Harris 

Hartzler 

Hastings (WA) 

Hayworth 

Heck 

Hensarling 

Herger 

Holden 

Huelskamp 

Huizenga (MI) 

Hultgren 

Hunter 

Hurt 

Issa 

Jenkins 

Johnson (OH) 

Johnson, Sam 

Jordan 

Kelly 

King (IA) 

King (NY) 

Kingston 

Kinzinger (IL) 

Kline 

Labrador 

Lamborn 

Lance 

Landry 

Lankford 

Latham 

LaTourette 

Latta 

LoBiondo 

Long 

Lucas 

Luetkemeyer 

Lummis 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Mack 

Manzullo 

Marchant 

Marino 

Matheson 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCaul 

McClintock 

McHenry 

McIntyre 

McKeon 

McKinley 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

Meehan 

Mica 

Miller (FL) 

Miller (MI) 

Miller, Gary 

Mulvaney 

Murphy (PA) 

Myrick 

Neugebauer 

Noem 

Nugent 

Nunes 

Nunnelee 

Olson 

Palazzo 

Paul 

Paulsen 

Pearce 

Pence 

Peterson 

Petri 

Pitts 

Platts 

Poe (TX) 

Pompeo 

Posey 

Price (GA) 

Quayle 

Rahall 

Reed 

Rehberg 

Reichert 

Renacci 

Ribble 

Rigell 

Rivera 

Roby 

Roe (TN) 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Rohrabacher 

Rokita 

Rooney 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Ross (AR) 

Ross (FL) 

Royce 

Runyan 

Ryan (WI) 

Scalise 

Schilling 

Schmidt 

Schock 

Schweikert 

Scott (SC) 

Scott, Austin 

Sensenbrenner 

Sessions 

Shimkus 

Shuler 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Southerland 

Stearns 

Stutzman 

Sullivan 

Terry 

Thompson (PA) 

Thornberry 

Tiberi 

Tipton 

Turner (NY) 

Turner (OH) 

Upton 

Walberg 

Walden 

Walsh (IL) 

Webster 

West 

Westmoreland 

Whitfield 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman 

Wolf 

Womack 

Woodall 

Yoder 

Young (AK) 

Young (FL) 

Young (IN) 

NOT VOTING—15 

Akin 

Bishop (NY) 

Culberson 

Dicks 

Garamendi 

Herrera Beutler 

Hirono 

Jackson (IL) 

Jackson Lee 

(TX) 

Lewis (CA) 

Meeks 

Reyes 

Richmond 

Stivers 

Sutton 

b 1851 

So the amendment was rejected. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

AMENDMENT NO. 5 OFFERED BY MR. MARKEY

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished 

business is the demand for a recorded 

vote on the amendment offered by the 

gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 

MARKEY) on which further proceedings 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5264 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 25, 2012 

were postponed and on which the noes 

prevailed by voice vote. 

The Clerk will redesignate the 

amendment. 

The Clerk redesignated the amendment. 

RECORDED VOTE

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote 

has been demanded. 

A recorded vote was ordered. 

The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2- 

minute vote. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—ayes 177, noes 240, 

not voting 14, as follows: 

[Roll No. 518] 

AYES—177 

Ackerman 

Altmire 

Andrews 

Baca 

Baldwin 

Barber 

Bass (CA) 

Becerra 

Berkley 

Berman 

Blumenauer 

Bonamici 

Boswell 

Brady (PA) 

Braley (IA) 

Brown (FL) 

Buchanan 

Butterfield 

Capps 

Capuano 

Cardoza 

Carnahan 

Carney 

Carson (IN) 

Castor (FL) 

Chandler 

Chu 

Cicilline 

Clarke (MI) 

Clarke (NY) 

Clay 

Cleaver 

Clyburn 

Cohen 

Connolly (VA) 

Conyers 

Cooper 

Costa 

Costello 

Courtney 

Critz 

Crowley 

Cuellar 

Cummings 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

DeLauro 

Deutch 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Donnelly (IN) 

Doyle 

Edwards 

Ellison 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Farr 

Fattah 

Filner 

Frank (MA) 

Fudge 

Gibson 

Gonzalez 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Grijalva 

Gutierrez 

Hahn 

Hanabusa 

Hastings (FL) 

Heinrich 

Higgins 

Himes 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hochul 

Holt 

Honda 

Hoyer 

Israel 

Johnson (GA) 

Johnson (IL) 

Johnson, E. B. 

Jones 

Kaptur 

Keating 

Kildee 

Kind 

Kissell 

Kucinich 

Langevin 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

Lee (CA) 

Levin 

Lipinski 

Loebsack 

Lofgren, Zoe 

Lowey 

Luja ́n 

Lynch 

Maloney 

Markey 

Matsui 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCollum 

McDermott 

McGovern 

McIntyre 

McNerney 

Michaud 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, George 

Moore 

Moran 

Murphy (CT) 

Nadler 

Napolitano 

Neal 

Olver 

Owens 

Pallone 

Pascrell 

Pastor (AZ) 

Pelosi 

Perlmutter 

Peters 

Pingree (ME) 

Platts 

Polis 

Price (NC) 

Quigley 

Rangel 

Reichert 

Richardson 

Rothman (NJ) 

Roybal-Allard 

Ruppersberger 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

Sa ́nchez, Linda 

T. 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Sarbanes 

Schakowsky 

Schiff 

Schwartz 

Scott (VA) 

Scott, David 

Serrano 

Sewell 

Sherman 

Sires 

Slaughter 

Smith (WA) 

Speier 

Stark 

Thompson (CA) 

Thompson (MS) 

Tierney 

Tipton 

Tonko 

Towns 

Tsongas 

Van Hollen 

Vela ́ zquez 

Visclosky 

Walz (MN) 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 

Watt 

Waxman 

Welch 

Wilson (FL) 

Woolsey 

Yarmuth 

NOES—240 

Adams 

Aderholt 

Akin 

Alexander 

Amash 

Amodei 

Austria 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Barletta 

Barrow 

Bartlett 

Barton (TX) 

Bass (NH) 

Benishek 

Berg 

Biggert 

Bilbray 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (UT) 

Black 

Blackburn 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boren 

Boustany 

Brady (TX) 

Brooks 

Broun (GA) 

Bucshon 

Buerkle 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Calvert 

Camp 

Campbell 

Canseco 

Cantor 

Capito 

Carter 

Cassidy 

Chabot 

Chaffetz 

Coble 

Coffman (CO) 

Cole 

Conaway 

Cravaack 

Crawford 

Crenshaw 

Davis (KY) 

Denham 

Dent 

DesJarlais 

Diaz-Balart 

Dold 

Dreier 

Duffy 

Duncan (SC) 

Duncan (TN) 

Ellmers 

Emerson 

Farenthold 

Fincher 

Fitzpatrick 

Flake 

Fleischmann 

Fleming 

Flores 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Foxx 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Gallegly 

Gardner 

Garrett 

Gerlach 

Gibbs 

Gingrey (GA) 

Gohmert 

Goodlatte 

Gosar 

Gowdy 

Granger 

Graves (GA) 

Graves (MO) 

Griffin (AR) 

Griffith (VA) 

Grimm 

Guinta 

Guthrie 

Hall 

Hanna 

Harper 

Harris 

Hartzler 

Hastings (WA) 

Hayworth 

Heck 

Hensarling 

Herger 

Herrera Beutler 

Holden 

Huelskamp 

Huizenga (MI) 

Hultgren 

Hunter 

Hurt 

Issa 

Jenkins 

Johnson (OH) 

Johnson, Sam 

Jordan 

Kelly 

King (IA) 

King (NY) 

Kingston 

Kinzinger (IL) 

Kline 

Labrador 

Lamborn 

Lance 

Landry 

Lankford 

Latham 

LaTourette 

Latta 

LoBiondo 

Long 

Lucas 

Luetkemeyer 

Lummis 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Mack 

Manzullo 

Marchant 

Marino 

Matheson 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCaul 

McClintock 

McHenry 

McKeon 

McKinley 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

Meehan 

Mica 

Miller (FL) 

Miller (MI) 

Miller, Gary 

Mulvaney 

Murphy (PA) 

Myrick 

Neugebauer 

Noem 

Nugent 

Nunes 

Nunnelee 

Olson 

Palazzo 

Paul 

Paulsen 

Pearce 

Pence 

Peterson 

Petri 

Pitts 

Poe (TX) 

Pompeo 

Posey 

Price (GA) 

Quayle 

Rahall 

Reed 

Rehberg 

Renacci 

Ribble 

Rigell 

Rivera 

Roby 

Roe (TN) 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Rohrabacher 

Rokita 

Rooney 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Ross (AR) 

Ross (FL) 

Royce 

Runyan 

Ryan (WI) 

Scalise 

Schilling 

Schmidt 

Schock 

Schrader 

Schweikert 

Scott (SC) 

Scott, Austin 

Sensenbrenner 

Sessions 

Shimkus 

Shuler 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Southerland 

Stearns 

Stutzman 

Sullivan 

Terry 

Thompson (PA) 

Thornberry 

Tiberi 

Turner (NY) 

Turner (OH) 

Upton 

Walberg 

Walden 

Walsh (IL) 

Webster 

West 

Westmoreland 

Whitfield 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman 

Wolf 

Womack 

Woodall 

Yoder 

Young (AK) 

Young (FL) 

Young (IN) 

NOT VOTING—14 

Bishop (NY) 

Culberson 

Dicks 

Garamendi 

Hirono 

Jackson (IL) 

Jackson Lee 

(TX) 

Lewis (CA) 

Lewis (GA) 

Meeks 

Reyes 

Richmond 

Stivers 

Sutton 

b 1855 

So the amendment was rejected. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do 

now rise. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Accordingly, the Committee rose; 

and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 

GINGREY of Georgia) having assumed 

the chair, Mr. SIMPSON, Acting Chair of 

the Committee of the Whole House on 

the state of the Union, reported that 

that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4078) to provide that no agency may take any significant regulatory action until the unemployment rate is equal to or less 

than 6.0 percent, had come to no resolution thereon. 

f 

REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4078, RED TAPE 

REDUCTION AND SMALL BUSINESS JOB CREATION ACT 

Ms. FOXX, from the Committee on 

Rules, submitted a privileged report 

(Rept. No. 112–623) on the resolution (H. 

Res. 741) providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4078) to provide 

that no agency may take any significant regulatory action until the unemployment rate is equal to or less than 

6.0 percent, which was referred to the 

House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed. 

f 

MAKING IN ORDER CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE CONCURRENT 

RESOLUTION 134, CONDEMNING 

THE ATROCITIES THAT OCCURRED IN AURORA, COLORADO 

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any 

time to consider House Concurrent 

Resolution 134 in the House; that the 

concurrent resolution be considered as 

read; and that the previous question be 

considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except 30 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by Representative 

COFFMAN of Colorado and Representative PERLMUTTER of Colorado or their 

respective designees. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentlewoman from North Carolina? 

There was no objection. 

f 

HOUR OF MEETING ON TOMORROW 

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 

a.m. tomorrow. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentlewoman from North Carolina? 

There was no objection. 

f 

RED TAPE REDUCTION AND 

SMALL BUSINESS JOB CREATION 

ACT 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 738 and rule 

XVIII, the Chair declares the House in 

the Committee of the Whole House on 

the state of the Union for the further 

consideration of the bill, H.R. 4078. 

Will the gentlewoman from Missouri 

(Mrs. HARTZLER) kindly take the chair. 

b 1900 

IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Accordingly, the House resolved 

itself into the Committee of the Whole 

House on the state of the Union for the 

further consideration of the bill (H.R. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE